PDA

View Full Version : 2001: A Space Odyssey & 2010 the sequel



Tycho
12-22-2006, 02:59 AM
"Good morning, Dave."

"Good morning, HAL."

2001 can be completey boring or reminiscient of the worst hallucination while sniffing Mouse Droids that could possibly be imaginable.

The movie opens with shots of us forumites from SirStevesGuide sitting around a black monolith alien and playing with dead animal bones - sort of what we do on this website anyway. A few of us get some starring scene parts.

Then the movie takes us to the moon on a flight that takes up nearly 30 minutes of the feature. It's pretty realistic to what is close to space travel today - or a meeting of Congress.

They find another monolith alien that's been burried on the moon for 4 million years.

This prompts them to launch a Jupiter mission when a tight beam transmission's sent by the alien towards Europa, one of Jupiter's moons.

Frank and Dave set off there in the Discovery-One (no relation to Slave-One) and HAL 9000 is the operations computer in control. There are 3 other scientists who just stay in an artificially induced catatonic trance, kind of like the audience.

Then HAL goes homicidal when he's threatened with being turned off because he malfunctioned and he believes he's perfect, but Frank and Dave don't.

HAL kills Frank and Dave disconnects him after some tense moments. The Discovery arrives at Jupiter though, and Dave is compelled to explore. He meets the monolith and is turned into an old man and then an infant after a serious psychadelic trip that you can't take even illict drugs to understand.

The answers to this movie's questions are never provided really. It's considered artsy to create something that's flashy but open to interpretation and all style and no substance - almost like a lot of my posts (but not quite).

2010 sort of settles some of those issues, but by another author and screenplay writer who probably never slept well again until they did this since Stanley Kubrick screwed so badly with their heads.

2001 stars Gary Lockwood of Star Trek fame (Gary Mitchell, Kirk's original First Officer for one episode).

I'm about to watch 2010 in a few minutes here. I offer the chance for discussion about both films here, because they go together and talking about one would probably lead to talking about the other anyway.

Who knows if they'll ever make another - say called 2040 for instance?

decadentdave
12-22-2006, 03:37 AM
Tycho, 2001 happens to be one of my favorite films of all time. I saw it when I was 4 years old and it opened my eyes to the universe. I remember watching it with my 7th grade science class and everyone in the class fell asleep and I was the only one who stayed awake. Afterward, the class complained how boring it was and I just shook my head in shame. 2010 was not a great film, although I was really hoping it would be as good as Peter Hyams' Capricorn One but I think the problem was that there should not have been a sequel. The original film needs no explanation period. I read Arthur C. Clarke's follow up novels 2061 and 3001 and they were utter disappointments. When you find out that the monoliths were nothing more than some kind of alien virus, I was completely insulted. I wished I had never read them. I heard Tom Hanks wanted to make 3001 and I laughed and thought "God no, for all our sakes," but knowing the creatively bankrupt entertainment biz, it is inevitable. Stanley Kubrick's film is a masterpiece. It is pure cinema art. Anything else is a homogenized derivative that has been soured by corrupt studio commerce.

Tycho
12-22-2006, 05:43 AM
I liked 2010 - I just finished watching it and I'd say the feeling that best describes it is "satisfying," as some answers are arrived at and the message of peace is quite warm and fuzzy.

What meaning do you ascribe to 2001, Dave? What "truth" do you find in it?

BTW, note that the one on the moon was the "Tycho Monolith" :D

decadentdave
12-22-2006, 03:09 PM
I liked 2010 - I just finished watching it and I'd say the feeling that best describes it is "satisfying," as some answers are arrived at and the message of peace is quite warm and fuzzy.

What meaning do you ascribe to 2001, Dave? What "truth" do you find in it?

BTW, note that the one on the moon was the "Tycho Monolith" :D

I had been meaning to ask you if that was where you derived your name from. As far as truth goes, life has taught me that all "truth" is relative. There are no absolutes, there is only belief, consciousness and the determination of the human spirit. Stanley Kubrick deliberately made the ending ambiguous and there have been many theories and interpretations to its meaning so I won't dwell on that here. There is a great transcendence of the human spirit to strive to reach the heavens and find meaning to the universe and his place in it and I think Kubrick's film illustrates this well. As a film by itself, I guess 2010 is okay but it is nothing like its predecessor. Two completely different films by two completely different directors. While some may find Kubrick's film slow and boring by today's standards I find it refreshing and poetic and philosophically contemplating. I am in awe every time I watch it. There will never be another film like it although Darren Aronofsky's The Fountain is the closest thing to it and its good to see that there is at least one film in this day and age that appreciates philosophical existentialism and artistic exhibition.

JediTricks
12-22-2006, 04:24 PM
When I first saw 2001 as a kid, I really disliked it, it was plodding and confusing and hard to grasp at a real story... and that monkey scene at the beginning was intolerably long. A few years later, 2010 came out and I really liked it, it was everything that 2001 was not to my young mind. More importantly, 2010 made it possible for me to go back to 2001 as a teenager with a better understanding of what it was getting at, which let me appreciate the film for what it was. I think 2001 is a very "adult" movie, the concepts are presented in a serious fashion with a heavy Kubrickian visual statement rather than a full-blown narrative, and there is no ending really, the statement made on its own makes the audience fill in the blanks - an interesting way to make a movie, when it works and folks can have a discussion about it that is, because even when it first came out the film really didn't work for people in that regard, they wanted answers handed to them and when the ending went so far off the rails they felt entirely confused and didn't dig deeper (unless they had chemical enhancements).

I think 2010 is a very underrated movie, I think it works on its own and is a good counterpoint to 2001, 2010 is more direct with its storytelling than 2001, is a better sci-fi story overall, and gives you more of a complete feeling about what you've saw - it gives you a real direction for answers to the questions posed in 2001. 2010 also supposedly is a little more true to Clarke's 2001 novel than Kubrick's movie.

Both movies are very good for very different reasons, 2001 is a vision of the past's vision of the future and tries to get metaphysical about the human condition, higher lifeforms, and how we perceive tools while making the audience do a lot of the legwork; 2010 fills in a lot of the gaps and tells a more direct story, has better pacing and more dialogue, is a less outrageous vision of the future, and has an important sociopolitical undertone.

Tycho
12-22-2006, 07:11 PM
I had been meaning to ask you if that was where you derived your name from.

No. It was derived from Capt. Tycho Celchu, Rogue Squadron, an X-wing pilot and First Officer under Wedge, developed in Michael Stackpole's comics and novels. He might've gotten the character's name from 2001 though. But 12 years ago, or whatever, when I first came online, everyone was grabbing Star Wars names, and the Han, Luke, and Darth Vaders were obviously taken up fast, so I made a grab for a more obscure but still-cool character.


Stanley Kubrick deliberately made the ending ambiguous and there have been many theories and interpretations to its meaning so I won't dwell on that here.

One can argue that this is creative or that it is lazy and saved him from a lot of expository work with a special effects light show. I see what you are getting at, and usually think that way about the film myself, but I had to point out the other possibility because that was what I was honestly feeling when I watched this the other night.


There is a great transcendence of the human spirit to strive to reach the heavens and find meaning to the universe and his place in it and I think Kubrick's film illustrates this well.

That's an awesome quote, Dave!


and that monkey scene at the beginning was intolerably long.

I noted before that this scene featured all of us here in the forums. We were acting out in our usual manner that is intolerably long. And note the presence of "The Tycho Monologue." There must have been a typo in the script and they made the 'monolith' instead. :D



I think 2010 is a very underrated movie, I think it works on its own and is a good counterpoint to 2001, 2010 is more direct with its storytelling than 2001, is a better sci-fi story overall, and gives you more of a complete feeling about what you've saw - it gives you a real direction for answers to the questions posed in 2001. 2010 also supposedly is a little more true to Clarke's 2001 novel than Kubrick's movie.


There I give kudos to 2010's writers for bringing to life their own vision of the answers to Kubrick's puzzle from the first film. Perhaps Clarke supplied those answers. I've never felt compelled to read the 2001 book.



Both movies are very good for very different reasons, 2001 is a vision of the past's vision of the future and tries to get metaphysical about the human condition, higher lifeforms, and how we perceive tools while making the audience do a lot of the legwork; 2010 fills in a lot of the gaps and tells a more direct story, has better pacing and more dialogue, is a less outrageous vision of the future, and has an important sociopolitical undertone.

Another great analysis. This is a good topic for a thread.

JediTricks
12-22-2006, 08:24 PM
Tycho is a crater on the moon, that's where 2001 got the name from, the 2nd monolith was found buried in the Tycho crater. The crater was named after 16th-century Danish astronomer Tycho Brahe.


Kubrick making the end of the movie vague in order to draw the audience into thinking about it was very smart, but it stood in stark contrast to the other tricks Kubrick had used in the film already, most notably the emphasis on the visual medium to tell the story rather than on dialogue, which makes the movie very offputting for most viewers. Kubrick was many things, but "lazy" was not among them.


In hindsight, the "dawn of man" monkey scene at the beginning couldn't be any shorter than it is now (it used to run way longer, hard to believe) - it tells its story and connects the monolith to man's beginnings visually since it cannot do it with dialogue, it could maybe be trimmed a tiny bit here and there to shave off a minute at most but the shots of the monkey behavior are setting up what we see later when the monolith appears. It's still a hard pill to swallow though.


Clarke worked a little with Kubrick on writing the screenplay for 2001, and worked more directly with director/screenwriter Peter Hyams on 2010, which is why I've always felt 2010 is more genuine to Clarke's vision, though Hyams did take heavy liberties adding the political aspects.

decadentdave
12-22-2006, 08:26 PM
I think 2001 is a very "adult" movie, the concepts are presented in a serious fashion with a heavy Kubrickian visual statement rather than a full-blown narrative, and there is no ending really, the statement made on its own makes the audience fill in the blanks - an interesting way to make a movie, when it works and folks can have a discussion about it that is, because even when it first came out the film really didn't work for people in that regard, they wanted answers handed to them and when the ending went so far off the rails they felt entirely confused and didn't dig deeper (unless they had chemical enhancements).

That is the problem I have with most films today is that they have to spoon-feed the audience any kind of expository meaning or simply dumb down any sophisticated or subversive ideas that would take away from popcorn entertainment. I like popcorn and cheese films just as much as the next guy but there was a time during the late 60's to early 70's when Hollywood took many artistic chances on new ideas and up-and-coming directors who gave us artistic films that have prevailed the test of time and 2001 is definitely one of those films. Those were the days when a movie was more than just commercialized entertainment, it was art, and it was an experience.



Both movies are very good for very different reasons, 2001 is a vision of the past's vision of the future and tries to get metaphysical about the human condition, higher lifeforms, and how we perceive tools while making the audience do a lot of the legwork; 2010 fills in a lot of the gaps and tells a more direct story, has better pacing and more dialogue, is a less outrageous vision of the future, and has an important sociopolitical undertone.

This is both true and somewhat unfortunate. The past's vision of the future was a lot more optimistic. I wouldn't call it outrageous because the kitchy fashions of the 60's obviously date it as a product of its era, but about how far the human race would come, even during the cold war conflict in 2010. As a kid I always assummed that we would be out there exploring the universe by the year 2001 (or Space:1999 lol) and it disappoints me that we haven't really changed. It is unlikely that we will see those visions realized in our lifetimes. There is so much political and civil unrest in the world now that (and I hate to invoke Roddenberry's altruistic vision because I find it flawed) we really are going to have to deal with the mess this world is in for many generations. My hope is that we will have no choice but to put our efforts towards the colonization of other worlds and the exploration of the great unknown. If films like 2001 or 2010 for that matter can inspire this then they served their purpose.

Tycho
12-22-2006, 10:45 PM
As a kid I always assummed that we would be out there exploring the universe by the year 2001 (or Space:1999 lol) and it disappoints me that we haven't really changed. It is unlikely that we will see those visions realized in our lifetimes. There is so much political and civil unrest in the world now that (and I hate to invoke Roddenberry's altruistic vision because I find it flawed) we really are going to have to deal with the mess this world is in for many generations. My hope is that we will have no choice but to put our efforts towards the colonization of other worlds and the exploration of the great unknown. If films like 2001 or 2010 for that matter can inspire this then they served their purpose.

Unfortunately, our leaders' efforts are focused on expanding short-term profits that they'll only be able to realize for the fleeting moments that make up their lifespan.

A long term approach is that they are "elected" (read: Bought) to ensure the longer-term profits of corporations, so that those who are and will be invested in them (inclusive of family legacies, stock holder heirlooms if you will) can have prosperous continuance.

Now if we look at Roddenberry's universe and compare, we have to question whether conspiracies are at work here.

Our leadership's biggest focus seems to be on what two consenting adults do with each other in privacy (for any orientation or preference) and a focus on belittling or attacking those who don't conform to a bell curve standard.

This would seem to lead to almost conflicting results.

On the first hand, policies seem to encourage breeding, thus economic growth due to new expenditure (kids outgrow their clothes and eventually need new automobiles and television sets more often than a healthy, lively, 100 year old adult - who aside from over-priced pharmaceuticals, would curb much of their spending, especially in retirement). Hence family values are really business growth values.

On the other hand, not providing affordable healthcare makes both the medical and pharmaceutical industries an area of profit for exploitation, and (against alleged pro-life values) kills off "lower consumers."

Imagine if you knew you were going to live to be 200 years old, and in good health. Would your consumption patterns change over the years? Would you retire at one point or another? Would you try to spend less in retirement.

OK, back to how this is relevant to our future as depicted in science / space exploration in futuristic dramas.

If science is allowed to progress too far ahead of religion, don't you think that it will be possible to either transplant enough cloned organs, or chemically adapt our bodies to stay healthy to live 200 year plus lives? When the powers that be value capitalism more, wouldn't this be a disaster?

If birth control proliferates enough to make population control and freedom from STDs (via vaccination advancement also), wouldn't sex just be a recreational past-time or a bought-and-sold-service in massage parlors? How would this impact growth economies for capitalists that want new babies creating new expenditures? "Family Values" is a code name for the program that attempts to prevent this.

If science progresses to space exploration and planet colonization, new businesses that sprout up elsewhere might challenge the old ones. "Mars-Mart" might outbid Wal-Mart, etc. The latter would either have to figure out how to monopolize interstellar trade and master outsourcing to Cybertron, or else face marketplace defeat. They'll fight using the politicians they own to never see this happen.

Furthermore, the whole Family Values program hinges much on religious beliefs. If more is discovered about the universe's origins each day that point away from the Bible (I'm not talking about intelligent design specificially here - there might be designers (plural) who once worked on it), there will be no binding social order. Plus religion gives many hope that would have none otherwise. They believe they are validating their beliefs by installing religious believers into power (or religious pretenders who use their positions to do their work for the capitalist corporations).

I know we border on Rancor Pit discussion here, but this is my very specific answer to the question about why our society is so slow to claim the vision of the future shown in popular science fiction. The movie makers are free to share their dreams (more free than the extent the CEO's of other industries are) and they don't bore the responsibility for the population growth issues or the health of the larger variety of publically held stock shares.

Tying this up with 2010 - it's the very same money issues that cause international rivalries and the crisis alluded to in 2010. That movie relates about Central America, but look at Hugo Chavez and tell me for sure you know he's the "bad guy."

decadentdave
12-23-2006, 02:13 AM
I certainly never looked at those films from a financial analyst perspective as you seem to have. I'm more of a philosophical mind but yes certainly the capitalist mentality impacts how our society is managed today and to be quite frank, its atrocious. I think if private organizations invest in ecological improvements to solving world problems such as oil consumption it would be the first step towards achieving those attainable goals. I just watched a fascinating documentary called "Who killed the Electric-Car?" which exploited the conspiracy of how Big Oil, the Government and General Motors all conspired to make electric cars strategically and deliberately fail in the consumer market. Anyway, I'm digressing here but the point is there are attainable solutions that are within our grasp yet corporations and beauracracy deliberately impede such progress and only shows how little we have progressed and how far we still have to go. I think that is why science fiction has such an allure to most people because we can visualize the future and we know that we can attain it. That's what the monoliths in 2001 inspired in us to rise up and use our intelligence to find solutions and it was present at each evolutionary leap leading us to our inevitable destiny. Unfortunately, we are so bogged down in wars over oil so that captitalists can profiteer from the blood of others when we have alternative solutions that can be implemented that we have not made any progress on the frontier of space.

2-1B
12-23-2006, 08:07 PM
"Keir Dullea, Gone Tomorrow."

JimJamBonds
12-24-2006, 12:33 AM
The sequel won't be out for three more years.

2-1B
12-24-2006, 01:01 AM
I can't wait til they get to 2020 in the series so we can see Hugh Downs and Barbara Walters light up the silver screen with their chemistry.

Tycho
12-24-2006, 02:26 AM
The sequel won't be out for three more years.

They are making another film? I didn't read any book series so I can't tell if you are kidding. But exploring Europa would be a natural course for this series to follow.

JimJamBonds
12-25-2006, 12:28 AM
They are making another film? I didn't read any book series so I can't tell if you are kidding. But exploring Europa would be a natural course for this series to follow.

Its a joke, 2010 is 3 years away.

Tycho
12-25-2006, 12:33 AM
Tycho needs the "stupid" avatar for himself. Here it is: :stupid: Dumb-de-dumb-dumb!

OK, I get it now. It's almost 2007 - and then in 3 years it will be 2010!

What a discovery I made! I should start a new thread about this! :cross-eye

2-1B
12-25-2006, 10:20 AM
You certainly should. :D

Blue2th
12-25-2006, 11:52 AM
"Great movie to see on acid" I remember my older brother saying. Which I'm sure he did. 2001 came out in 1968. The special effects were way ahead of their time. There wasn't any space adventure before that was as realistic. Some or one of the leading modelmakers worked on Star Wars also http://www.spookybug.com/origins/2001.html

Tycho
12-25-2006, 12:27 PM
1968? The film is THAT old? Wow. That's incredible!

It can't be. The book is probably that old, but Star Trek TOS started in 1966 and they couldn't even approach 2001's quality (I know: TV budget vs. MGM Studios') but perhaps the 2001 I saw was a re-make? Are there different versions?

Blue2th
12-25-2006, 01:55 PM
Yes, it is that old. I think there is a director's cut with a few things cut as JT mentioned, but all effects essentially the same. 1968, that's a year before the Eagle landed on the moon. Too bad life doesn't imitate art beyond that except for the Space Shuttle-Space Station program and a few other milestones....... I agree wholeheartedly with yours (Tycho) and DD's assessments of the state of mankind and our lack of the long-term vision you speak of. I just can't articulate it so eloquently as you guys. I am lurking and reading though. Some of us appreciate the insight.:yes:

El Chuxter
12-26-2006, 02:47 PM
The book is better (in both cases), but the screenplay and novel for 2001 were written concurrently by Mr Clarke.

JediTricks
12-28-2006, 07:48 PM
That is the problem I have with most films today is that they have to spoon-feed the audience any kind of expository meaning or simply dumb down any sophisticated or subversive ideas that would take away from popcorn entertainment.This is very true, like all things today the business end of moviemaking has overridden the "art" aspects of major studio films because that's what the market seems to demand - however art should not be controlled by the majority audience but by the artist. My point before was that 2001 leaves the ending up to the audience to discover AND is an intentionally-unusual cinematic storytelling medium which itself baffles the audience, so the combination of the 2 is likely what is too much to take for most people.


but there was a time during the late 60's to early 70's when Hollywood took many artistic chances on new ideas and up-and-coming directors who gave us artistic films that have prevailed the test of time and 2001 is definitely one of those films. Those were the days when a movie was more than just commercialized entertainment, it was art, and it was an experience.However, often the average moviegoer felt those films were not a satisfying experience - not every movie is for everybody, today movies are meant to be made for as many people as possible which ends up watering them down but making them more money and lowering the expectations of audiences. I think that era is where the pendulum swung too far in the opposite direction, and by the '80s the pendulum had swung back just as hard - only with corporations buying all the studios and making money that way, they were able to hold it there a lot longer.


As a kid I always assummed that we would be out there exploring the universe by the year 2001 (or Space:1999 lol) and it disappoints me that we haven't really changed. It is unlikely that we will see those visions realized in our lifetimes.I've never seen Space: 1999. :p But I agree, it is very disappointing that we've stalled our exploration and use of space. However, it'll change in our lifetime as they really are building a hotel in space right now (unlike the spaceport in 2001, the hotel is inflatable) - granted, only millionaires can get there for the time being, but as more folks go up there, the prices will come down. Of course, we're still not doing anything worthwhile up there ourselves, leaving the tough work to our robots and satellites which is fine but limited and dehumanizing to the mission of exploring the universe.


I hate to invoke Roddenberry's altruistic vision because I find it flawedI love Roddenberry's vision of the future that is Star Trek, and it's not all that altruistic, Roddenberry included pointing out that Earth has another huge war that wipes out huge amounts of people, it's only through getting past that which his future could come to life (it's a message downplayed in the show but it is in there none the less).


I'm going to sidestep the sociopolitical discussion topics Tycho brought up altogether.



2001 came out in 1968. The special effects were way ahead of their time. There wasn't any space adventure before that was as realistic. It apparently took a lot of money and talent and passion to make a space odyssey look dull. :p Yes, it was very realistic... TOO realistic in a way, everything after the stuff on the moon is slow and plodding and quiet and tedious when out in space, exactly like it really would be but immensely frustrating to watch at times. :p I found the all the space stuff before that very engaging since it deals with the human interaction of life in space and space stations and moon bases, then the film switches gears to 1 lonely ship with a crazy computer - I'll grant Kubrick this, he does convey upon the audience very specific feelings about everything through the cinematic medium.



1968? The film is THAT old? Wow. That's incredible!

It can't be. The book is probably that old, but Star Trek TOS started in 1966 and they couldn't even approach 2001's quality (I know: TV budget vs. MGM Studios') but perhaps the 2001 I saw was a re-make? Are there different versions?No dude, the movie and novel were written at the same time in 1965 and Kubrick manipulated Clarke into delaying the novel's release until after the movie came out in '68.

Star Trek's effects budget was pennies compared to 2001:ASO's, NBC was exceptionally cheap with the show's budget and actually lowered each season.

Before 2001:ASO, the visual effects champ was "Forbidden Planet" from 1956 but that look - while very exciting - was derived more from the pulp magazine artworks of the day than any real vision of science (though, like 2001:ASO and Star Wars, FP also won the oscar for visual effects).

Blue2th
12-28-2006, 11:31 PM
Recently George Lucas had some comments that are not unlike your statements for the latter space scenes of 2001 http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2006/march22/henlucas-032206.html well I guess that link didn't work. Anyways he stated that Stanley Kubrick wanted to show us how boring space can really be. As opposed to how exiting he (Lucas) wanted to make it.

JediTricks
12-29-2006, 07:07 PM
The reason the link didn't work before is because you ran it direcntly into the previous word so it went "2001http" which the system won't parse - I fixed it.


Anyway, about Lucas' statement, "[Kubrick with 2001:ASO] wanted to show you how boring space really is, I wanted to do a fantasy, which is to show you how exciting space can really be. But is it real, this imaginary world? I wanted to do it cinematically—I wanted to be able to move the camera and do short shots of ships flying around and do dogfights..." I think Lucas is overgeneralizing the difference between SW and ASO there as Kubrick has some fairly engaging space scenes before we get to the Discovery mission. Maybe Kubrick's statement is about the loneliness of space travel as well as being boring, maybe about man's first voyage out into a larger world... or maybe it's just boring. Anyway, it's interesting enough a cinematic statement that 40 years later we're still discussing it.

Tycho
12-29-2006, 09:03 PM
Theoretically, if ships could travel at lightspeed like in Star Wars, they'd still arrive out of sink with real time. That is the Rebel Fleet would have arrived at Endor perhaps years after the Death Star Was built and Han and Leia would be in their middle-ages when they got there.

Next, laser cannons and explosions in space wouldn't make cool Ben Burt noises.

Finally, I'm just guessing, but John Williams doesn't actually perform concerts in space - especially following rebel insurgents around performing for them.

Of course, without some of these elements, yeah, space would be kind of boring.

So we suspend disbelief after all and Star Wars sells a lot of action figures and 2001: ASO sold none.

JediTricks
12-29-2006, 11:13 PM
Theoretically, if ships could travel at lightspeed like in Star Wars, they'd still arrive out of sink with real time. That is the Rebel Fleet would have arrived at Endor perhaps years after the Death Star Was built and Han and Leia would be in their middle-ages when they got there.I'm obviously no physicist, but I never got what Einstein was on about with Special Relativity and the twin paradox, time is a constant to us, we perceive it in a very specific way, and I don't see how someone getting in a ship, flying away from us at Faster Than Light speed for 5 minutes, turning around and flying back to us for 5 minutes will have taken only 6 minutes in the ship rather than 10 - if the speed of light weren't used as the universal end-all-be-all infinity sign and rather just another tick on the dimensional speedometer, they'd have been gone for 10 minutes and their trip would have taken them 10 minutes. Let's say that we have a magic phone that can make calls instantly no matter where, and the ship flies at FTL - we'll say 1,000,000,000mph - for 5 minutes then calls us, why isn't the ship 5,000,000,000 miles away, what exactly is changing about that constant? I find the whole thing rather odd, like for the past 100 years we've set ourselves to a level of "oh, well we understand that perfectly now, nothing left to do but sip lemonade in the sun" behavior just because there's an oddity in mathmatics based on our PERCEPTION of things nearing the speed of light even though we haven't proved that those things ACTUALLY are changing, like here: http://www.adamauton.com/warp/about.html
The whole thing is about what we'd see, which makes sense, but we could see wet spaghetti and it wouldn't make a difference to the lattice's actual EXISTANCE. (yes, I'm basically giving the finger to causality in this case, but maybe our understanding of these Special Relativity ideas is too perception-based anyway.)


So we suspend disbelief after all and Star Wars sells a lot of action figures and 2001: ASO sold none.Well, 2001:ASO isn't a backwards-looking myth-based adventure story borrowing liberally from kiddie serials. :p

decadentdave
01-04-2007, 04:10 AM
This is very true, like all things today the business end of moviemaking has overridden the "art" aspects of major studio films because that's what the market seems to demand - however art should not be controlled by the majority audience but by the artist. My point before was that 2001 leaves the ending up to the audience to discover AND is an intentionally-unusual cinematic storytelling medium which itself baffles the audience, so the combination of the 2 is likely what is too much to take for most people.

And what makes this work is the fact that the universe itself is truly baffling and beyond the comprehension of the human mind to understand in its current evolutionary state which I think was conveyed through it's brilliant use of abstract imagery, metaphor and expository ambiguity. It maintains the mysteries of the universe while romanticizing them.



However, often the average moviegoer felt those films were not a satisfying experience - not every movie is for everybody, today movies are meant to be made for as many people as possible which ends up watering them down but making them more money and lowering the expectations of audiences. I think that era is where the pendulum swung too far in the opposite direction, and by the '80s the pendulum had swung back just as hard - only with corporations buying all the studios and making money that way, they were able to hold it there a lot longer.

I think that in today's market there is an audience for just about any medium, genre and niche. Studios focus on satisfying the needs of the masses and general consent to turn a quick box-office buck when it really should be focusing on its specific target audience and appealing to it instead of the lowest common denominator. There will always be artistic films that do not appeal to the general public and will not reap the financial box office revenues enjoyed by populist entertainment but reach their intended audience. Case-in-point take Darren Aronofsky's The Fountain which I hail as the new 2001. Here we have a beautifully conceptualized artistic vision that failed miserably at the box office due to lack of promotional marketing towards a specific target audience and was criticized for being too "heady" for the general public to understand. Instead, the films that reign at the box office are mindless tripe like Pirates of the Caribbean which caters to general audiences. When Star Wars was released Kubrick foresaw the death of cinema as art and that spectacles like Star Wars were what audiences wanted... pure escapist entertainment. Don't get me wrong, I love Star Wars and I love 2001 but they are both dyametrically different films. Star Wars presides in the realm of Sci-Fi fantasy whereas 2001 resides in the realm of true Science Fiction. Kubrick was the master at exploring the human condition and the irrationalities of life, sex, violence and death which he explored to a divine artistic degree in every film he made. There will always be blockbusters and there will always be artistic cinema but what the 60's and 70's did pre-Star Wars was successfully infuse both so that it would appeal to those with a greater level of comprehension while still serving as a vehicle for entertaining the masses. Studios are going to have to start taking those kinds of risks again instead of relying on the same tried-and-true franchises and formulas and remaking and reimagining everything it has already produced. It's time for Hollywood to take chances on original ideas again otherwise we may never see another kind of revolutionary groundbreaking film like Star Wars again.

JON9000
01-07-2007, 10:18 PM
To quote Rock Hudson, standing up and leaving the film: "Will somebody tell me what the Hell this is about!?"

I love 3 things about 2001:

1. The almost ubiquitous "rebirth/birth canal" symbolism. Everything looks like a birth canal, the inside of a womb, or sperm cell.

2. The fact that it is even to this day one of the only "hard" SF films.

3. The wry irony of the most human character in the film being the onboard computer... I forget his name!

I really like 2010 as well. I actually saw it first when I was 10. Do you know that the SAL9000 is voiced by Candice Bergen?

Blue2th
01-07-2007, 10:33 PM
Theoretically, if ships could travel at lightspeed like in Star Wars, they'd still arrive out of sink with real time. That is the Rebel Fleet would have arrived at Endor perhaps years after the Death Star Was built and Han and Leia would be in their middle-ages when they got there.

Next, laser cannons and explosions in space wouldn't make cool Ben Burt noises.

Duh! That's what the Time-Flux-Capacitor is for. It fixes those problems so light speed can be achieved when ever needed without the side effects...... I do like the way explosions and battles take place in Battlestar Galactica, with no noise. Seems to have a realistic feel to it. It works.

decadentdave
01-07-2007, 10:58 PM
Duh! That's what the Time-Flux-Capacitor is for. It fixes those problems so light speed can be achieved when ever needed without the side effects...... I do like the way explosions and battles take place in Battlestar Galactica, with no noise. Seems to have a realistic feel to it. It works.

The Time-Flux Capacitor is a (convenient) fictitious device that alleviates the problems of theoretical hyperspace space travel. The practical solution would be to fold or "warp" two points on the relative curvature of the space-time continuum so that time is not relative to distance and velocity or (I like the way it is stated in Dune) to "travel without moving" so that you could arrive at your destination point without leaving your relative point of departure thereby negating the factor of time as it is applied to distance and velocity.

Blue2th
01-07-2007, 11:55 PM
What! Damn your good decadentdave! The Time-Flux-Capacitor is very convenient. Especially when you don't have to explain how it works, it just does. (I forgot to put a :rolleyes: or a :ninja: in there when mentioning it) The shortest distance between two points is a straight line. Unless you actually fold space like a piece of paper till the points touch. Therefore you move but don't move, is what I assume you are saying.....I like the way they did it in Dune also. Wish I could get my hands on some of that spice. :laugh:

decadentdave
01-08-2007, 12:36 AM
The Spice Melange is really getting into metaphysics... expanding consciousness so that the Guild Navigators could calculate the mathmatics needed to fold space to travel without moving. Like the Time-Flux capacitor, it's just another (convenient) fictitious device with some hypothetical technobabble to sidestep the issue of traveling to distant starsystems indigenous to the Houses of the Landsraad. You couldn't well as though travel from Kaitan to Arakkis at lightspeed or faster-than-lightspeed velocities without running into the relativity of time, but what it really boils down to is just another convenient plot device to move the story from one location to the other without having to take up just as much literal as well as figurative time and space. :p

stillakid
01-08-2007, 09:44 AM
I'm obviously no physicist, but I never got what Einstein was on about with Special Relativity and the twin paradox, time is a constant to us, we perceive it in a very specific way, and I don't see how someone getting in a ship, flying away from us at Faster Than Light speed for 5 minutes, turning around and flying back to us for 5 minutes will have taken only 6 minutes in the ship rather than 10 - if the speed of light weren't used as the universal end-all-be-all infinity sign and rather just another tick on the dimensional speedometer, they'd have been gone for 10 minutes and their trip would have taken them 10 minutes.

Check on Brian Greene's books concerning these situations. In his book, The Elegant Universe, he focuses primarily on String Theory and also has a bit of a layman's primer on Einstein's theories. A lot of the math is way over my head, but Brian manages to talk about most of it in terms that simple people like me can sort of grasp. :)

But what I really wanted to get at was that an experiment was done years ago to test this theory. The gist of what Einstein was saying is that if someone goes faster, time slows down for them. Sounds odd and counter-intuitive to our human minds, so they took two highly accurate clocks, put one on a fast plane and left the other on the ground. The plane went as fast as it could for a while then landed. When they checked the sync on the clocks, it turned out that the one which was going faster through "time and space" was now behind the one which had been going at a constant speed through time and space (the one on the ground). Now, because we can't achieve anything even close to the speed of light, the difference was in nano-seconds, but the experiment proved that Einstein was right. Time does indeed slow down for objects moving through space at rapid speeds. The person or object moving through time-space doesn't perceive it like that...that's where the concept of relativity comes in. The whole thing gets really trippy really fast, but the more we learn about the universe and the structure of space and time, the more confused we seem to get. I mean, even the "simple" concept of space itself expanding (not just things moving away from each other...space itself is expanding) is hard to grasp.

(I have my own addendum to this phenomenon that applies to little kids and adults. You know how when you were a kid that Summers seemed to last forever? In fact, childhood seems to be for a long time. As you get older, the years seem to slip away faster and faster. You hear people say it all the time, but never kids. Maybe kids just aren't looking at the "big picture" as adults do so they don't even perceive time in that way....but maybe, just maybe think about this: Younger people tend to be far more active than older people. It's a stretch, but because every fiber in their bodies is "moving" faster almost all the time than an older adult, perhaps time itself for them is moving slower. As we age, time (as we actually perceive it) actually speeds up! So we're not merely thinking that the years are shorter to us than they were when we were kids...years actually ARE shorter for us than when we were kids. It's odd, I know, but coming from someone with kids and watching the way they operate (high energy almost all the time) and comparing that with my own parents (and to an extent, myself), it doesn't seem to be too far from the mark. Or maybe I'm just seeing things. :D )

But there are different kinds of movies for different kinds of entertainment. Some take a decidely "realistic" approach and try to be heady and "intelligent" and "smart" for film snobs who thumb their noses at mere "movies." George took a different path and made fun shoot-em-up set in space where ships could bank and fire laser bolts and travel from one end of the galaxy to the other without affecting anyone's ages. Kubrick did one thing pretty well and Lucas did the other pretty well. Apples and oranges set in similar environments. It would be like comparing a La Boheme performed at the Met one night and a BB King concert performed on the same exact stage the next.

stillakid
01-08-2007, 09:51 AM
The Spice Melange is really getting into metaphysics... expanding consciousness so that the Guild Navigators could calculate the mathmatics needed to fold space to travel without moving. Like the Time-Flux capacitor, it's just another (convenient) fictitious device with some hypothetical technobabble to sidestep the issue of traveling to distant starsystems indigenous to the Houses of the Landsraad. You couldn't well as though travel from Kaitan to Arakkis at lightspeed or faster-than-lightspeed velocities without running into the relativity of time, but what it really boils down to is just another convenient plot device to move the story from one location to the other without having to take up just as much literal as well as figurative time and space. :p

I never saw the DUNE version of travel in quite the same way. Not being a theoretical physicist, I have to rely on the study of others, but the concept of folding space seemed to be a valid way to sidestep the problem of time/age/relativity. The primary difference is that Star Wars travel relied on engines that propelled a vehicle from point A to point B very very fast. Dune technology, however, merely (somehow) folds space itself so that point A sits right next to point B.

Sort of like if you took a flat map of the United States...laid flat, NY and LA are 3000 miles apart. In Star Wars, they travel that linear path and a certain amount of time passes. In Dune, the technology actually folds the map so that LA and NY are side-by-side thus making the journey almost instantaneous. The navigators in Dune are merely mutated human computers which calculate the math for the "engines" (or whatever makes the folding happen). The Star Wars nav computers are instead charting a AAA type trip-tik so that they won't fly too close to star or bounce through super-nova. :D

Tycho
01-08-2007, 11:24 AM
The age perception thing is interesting, as is "hyperspace."

I'll deal with first things first:

If an 8 year old said he'd played with SW figures for half his life, that would be 4 years. Conversely, 4 years seems like a longer period of time because it is half the 8 year old's life.

If a 20 year old said they'd played with SW figures for 4 years, that would mean they started when they were 16 and 4 years only equals a quarter of their life. So if you asked how long they'd been into the hobby, their answer might be "not that long," because relative to them, it hasn't been.

Time perception changes again if you asked a 30 year old the same question, and they said "half their life." That would put their start age at 15.

Sorry. I'm tired. Someone step in and derive where I was going with this...

stillakid
01-08-2007, 12:11 PM
The age perception thing is interesting, as is "hyperspace."

I'll deal with first things first:

If an 8 year old said he'd played with SW figures for half his life, that would be 4 years. Conversely, 4 years seems like a longer period of time because it is half the 8 year old's life.

If a 20 year old said they'd played with SW figures for 4 years, that would mean they started when they were 16 and 4 years only equals a quarter of their life. So if you asked how long they'd been into the hobby, their answer might be "not that long," because relative to them, it hasn't been.

Time perception changes again if you asked a 30 year old the same question, and they said "half their life." That would put their start age at 15.

Sorry. I'm tired. Someone step in and derive where I was going with this...

No. You're dealing with language symantics, not actual perception of time. How we use language to define time and how we measure it isn't what I was talking about. When I brought up the child/adult perception, it was about how we actually "feel" when thinking about time. When we talk about actual theoretical physics, the math and the experiment support one another in suggesting that time DOES slow down for objects as they move faster and faster. Age, in the context that you're using it (half ages) has nothing to do with the idea that as we grow older, days and years seem to move along faster than when we were kids with "endless" Summers.

Tycho
01-08-2007, 12:38 PM
I'm back from a non-nap. (I laid there with my eyes shut but I couldn't fall asleep - but my eyes feel better, so I guess that was worth it)

But I hear what you're saying Stillakid. Yes, there were endless summers when we were kids. And "Wait until your birthday," seemed to mean like "forever." Now the seasons come and go so fast!

It's funny. Being ill, my blood is slowly turning into pure poison for my body without my kidneys working like they should, and along with the lower amount of oxygen it can carry, I'm tiring and staying home and sleeping much more than anyone else here most likely. That being said, time is still moving fast. I sense summer coming up again and it's still January - or maybe it will be when I finish typing this sentence.

What the heck is going on? It's a paradox, too. When I was a kid, all I wanted was to be grown up and be an adult (albeit a young adult). Now that I am grown up, I really miss being a kid. I remember how the KENNER landspeeder used to glide so fast across the carpet when you retracted the wheels up inside it with Luke's stickshift. Then Skywalker and Kenobi could do spin-outs in the middle of the living room! It seemed like I could do that forever and then still have time to go and play baseball. Now the sun goes down in the time it takes me to think about that! (j/k)

JediTricks
01-08-2007, 07:14 PM
But what I really wanted to get at was that an experiment was done years ago to test this theory. The gist of what Einstein was saying is that if someone goes faster, time slows down for them. Sounds odd and counter-intuitive to our human minds, so they took two highly accurate clocks, put one on a fast plane and left the other on the ground. The plane went as fast as it could for a while then landed. When they checked the sync on the clocks, it turned out that the one which was going faster through "time and space" was now behind the one which had been going at a constant speed through time and space (the one on the ground). Now, because we can't achieve anything even close to the speed of light, the difference was in nano-seconds, but the experiment proved that Einstein was right. Time does indeed slow down for objects moving through space at rapid speeds. The person or object moving through time-space doesn't perceive it like that...that's where the concept of relativity comes in. The whole thing gets really trippy really fast, but the more we learn about the universe and the structure of space and time, the more confused we seem to get. I mean, even the "simple" concept of space itself expanding (not just things moving away from each other...space itself is expanding) is hard to grasp.My problems with the Hafele-Keating experiment are that A) the experiment also throws gravity into the equation, gravity supposedly ALSO having an effect on time's flow in the relativity issue; and B) the inventor of the atomic clock, which they were using in that experiment, questions the experiment's accuracy.


(I have my own addendum to this phenomenon that applies to little kids and adults. You know how when you were a kid that Summers seemed to last forever? In fact, childhood seems to be for a long time. As you get older, the years seem to slip away faster and faster. You hear people say it all the time, but never kids. Maybe kids just aren't looking at the "big picture" as adults do so they don't even perceive time in that way....but maybe, just maybe think about this: Younger people tend to be far more active than older people. It's a stretch, but because every fiber in their bodies is "moving" faster almost all the time than an older adult, perhaps time itself for them is moving slower. As we age, time (as we actually perceive it) actually speeds up! So we're not merely thinking that the years are shorter to us than they were when we were kids...years actually ARE shorter for us than when we were kids. It's odd, I know, but coming from someone with kids and watching the way they operate (high energy almost all the time) and comparing that with my own parents (and to an extent, myself), it doesn't seem to be too far from the mark. Or maybe I'm just seeing things. :D )Ah, but doesn't this dispute the relativity argument you were just making? Because kids ARE aging at a constant speed, it's only the perceptions we make about the passage of time that is in flux. Anyway, I'm not down with string theory yet, it has a lot more theorizing to be done before I'll buy it, we'll have to start vibrating slower to appreciate that. ;)


The primary difference is that Star Wars travel relied on engines that propelled a vehicle from point A to point B very very fast. That's not accurate, Star Wars' method of FTL travel is actually somewhat similar to Star Trek's in that to achieve FTL speeds they have to dump their ships into another dimension, Star Trek has "subspace" while Star Wars has "hyperspace" - the biggest difference being that Star Trek's subspace is everywhere and they can phase into it at varying degrees for different speeds, while Star Wars' hyperspace appears to be a system of tunnels that can only be entered and exited in certain ways. Both subspace and hyperspace can be affected by the affects of large normal-space objects such as the gravitational pulls of stars.



No. You're dealing with language symantics, not actual perception of time. How we use language to define time and how we measure it isn't what I was talking about. When I brought up the child/adult perception, it was about how we actually "feel" when thinking about time. When we talk about actual theoretical physics, the math and the experiment support one another in suggesting that time DOES slow down for objects as they move faster and faster. Age, in the context that you're using it (half ages) has nothing to do with the idea that as we grow older, days and years seem to move along faster than when we were kids with "endless" Summers.I don't think Tycho is just dealing with symantics there, his point is valid beyond just the words, experiencing something for a short time when you've experienced far less will have greater impact than when you've experienced far more, and from there it takes more to make a bigger impact - perception.

Of course, we're not taking one crucial thing into account when we talk about the passage of time for kids vs adults being long vs short, childrens' brains are not fully developed, their senses aren't as accute and their brains have not completely grown into their final shapes.

JON9000
01-10-2007, 06:01 PM
I think Albert Einstein explained the Theory of Relativity most succinctly thus: "Sit with a pretty girl for an hour, and it seems like a minute. THAT'S relativity!"

stillakid
01-10-2007, 07:10 PM
I think Albert Einstein explained the Theory of Relativity most succinctly thus: "Sit with a pretty girl for an hour, and it seems like a minute. THAT'S relativity!"


That and massages. One hour of Chemistry class was always MUCH longer than a sixty-minute massage.

stillakid
01-10-2007, 07:26 PM
My problems with the Hafele-Keating experiment are that A) the experiment also throws gravity into the equation, gravity supposedly ALSO having an effect on time's flow in the relativity issue; and B) the inventor of the atomic clock, which they were using in that experiment, questions the experiment's accuracy.

Well, look, we deal with the tools and knowledge that we have (and have built from) in the year 2007. A basic rule of science (which differentiates it from religion) is that we always question, even the most solid of results.

That being said, of course there will always be variants to factor into any experiment, but the math was there prior to the experiment and an experiment SEEMS to support the theory. With that in mind, Einstein's idea remains viable at this point in our history.


Ah, but doesn't this dispute the relativity argument you were just making? Because kids ARE aging at a constant speed, it's only the perceptions we make about the passage of time that is in flux.
No, it doesn't dispute it at all. To adults, "kids" seem to be aging at a constant rate, but perhaps because they are more "energetic" (perhaps even on a molecular level because they are actively growing), their progress through time/space could be faster than an adult in which case (assuming Einstein is correct), their relative perception of time is longer than an adult. I'm suggesting that perhaps it isn't merely a function of lifespan perception or language semantics, rather that there is a true reason for that perception which is based upon Einstein's theory.


Anyway, I'm not down with string theory yet, it has a lot more theorizing to be done before I'll buy it, we'll have to start vibrating slower to appreciate that. ;)
The nice thing about String theory is that it makes a lot of sense. The bad news is that given our current techology, it is impossible to prove.


That's not accurate, Star Wars' method of FTL travel is actually somewhat similar to Star Trek's in that to achieve FTL speeds they have to dump their ships into another dimension, Star Trek has "subspace" while Star Wars has "hyperspace" - the biggest difference being that Star Trek's subspace is everywhere and they can phase into it at varying degrees for different speeds, while Star Wars' hyperspace appears to be a system of tunnels that can only be entered and exited in certain ways. Both subspace and hyperspace can be affected by the affects of large normal-space objects such as the gravitational pulls of stars.
Says who? :confused: You must have gotten that from some random EU source. Watching the films themselves, we never have any indication that any kind of wormhole method is used. The "nav" computer plots a course through space and the ship ZOOMS off in that direction really fast. There has never been a case where they had to pilot over to an onramp to travel from one place to another.



I don't think Tycho is just dealing with symantics there, his point is valid beyond just the words, experiencing something for a short time when you've experienced far less will have greater impact than when you've experienced far more, and from there it takes more to make a bigger impact - perception.
Well, what you're getting at may ALSO be true, but see my answer above in regard to what I'm suggesting.


Of course, we're not taking one crucial thing into account when we talk about the passage of time for kids vs adults being long vs short, childrens' brains are not fully developed, their senses aren't as accute and their brains have not completely grown into their final shapes.
Again, another variable which may or may not have any impact upon the conclusion. Perception of time is influenced by something as subjective as boredom and/or interest, so my idea isn't dealing with those kinds of variables. Again, see above.

Thank you. :)

JediTricks
01-10-2007, 10:17 PM
No, it doesn't dispute it at all. To adults, "kids" seem to be aging at a constant rate, but perhaps because they are more "energetic" (perhaps even on a molecular level because they are actively growing), their progress through time/space could be faster than an adult in which case (assuming Einstein is correct), their relative perception of time is longer than an adult. I'm suggesting that perhaps it isn't merely a function of lifespan perception or language semantics, rather that there is a true reason for that perception which is based upon Einstein's theory.That absolutely is the opposite of it, special relativity says that time actually WILL pass differently for parties depending on their speed relative to the speed of light, the guy standing on the planet will age faster than the guy who travelled at the speed of light to another place and back again, you're saying it SEEMS different depending on which side of the age fence you're on but it's only perception-based as an outside observer can gauge the amount of time they're actually spending as equal.


Says who? :confused: You must have gotten that from some random EU source. Watching the films themselves, we never have any indication that any kind of wormhole method is used.What's that guy's name again? Oh yeah, George Lucas. He specifically said this is the case, and as for my EU source, it's in the first movie - "Traveling through hyperspace isn't like dusting crops, boy!" and "Aw, we've come out of hyperspace into a meteor shower." and "They have just made the jump into hyperspace." - the use of "into", "out of" and "through" suggest it's a separate space from regular space. And as for the interference from stellar bodies into hyperspace, "Without precise calculations we could fly right through a star or bounce too close to a supernova and that'd end your trip real quick, wouldn't it?" Lucas even says that navigating the limited hyperspace access routes are what Han is talking about when he says he made the Kessel Run in 12 parsecs - measuring the amount of distance taken in the route rather than the time it took.

decadentdave
01-10-2007, 10:32 PM
All of these theories about Special Relativity remind me of that Star Trek episode "Wink of an Eye" where those Ensign Expendibles were turned into salt cubes. Anyway, the point is they were moving and existing at highly accelerated speeds that made them invisible to our constant perception of time and space. The only indication we had to their presence in the same spatial plane was a "buzzing" sound. The same applies to human metabolism. Fact: children have faster metabolic rates than adults. As we age our metabolisms get slower and slower and perceived time moves by faster and faster. Children grow at highly accelerated metabolic rates starting at birth through the end of puberty. Most adults peak somewhere in their 20's and begin slowing down, however there are some that have that disease like J.F. Sabastian had in Blade Runner (Methusala Syndrome?) where they age prematurely and end up looking like they are 40 in their late teens and 20's and typically live much shorter life-spans. Just as insects may live just a few days but have a complete life-cycle. The perception of time from an insect's point of view could be relative to that of a human's.

decadentdave
01-10-2007, 10:35 PM
What's that guy's name again? Oh yeah, George Lucas. He specifically said this is the case, and as for my EU source, it's in the first movie - "Traveling through hyperspace isn't like dusting crops, boy!" and "Aw, we've come out of hyperspace into a meteor shower." and "They have just made the jump into hyperspace." - the use of "into", "out of" and "through" suggest it's a separate space from regular space. And as for the interference from stellar bodies into hyperspace, "Without precise calculations we could fly right through a star or bounce too close to a supernova and that'd end your trip real quick, wouldn't it?" Lucas even says that navigating the limited hyperspace access routes are what Han is talking about when he says he made the Kessel Run in 12 parsecs - measuring the amount of distance taken in the route rather than the time it took.

Oh please, not the Kessel Run argument again. Star Wars is FANTASY i.e. cannot be proven accurate by empirical science.

stillakid
01-11-2007, 05:39 AM
That absolutely is the opposite of it, special relativity says that time actually WILL pass differently for parties depending on their speed relative to the speed of light, the guy standing on the planet will age faster than the guy who travelled at the speed of light to another place and back again, you're saying it SEEMS different depending on which side of the age fence you're on but it's only perception-based as an outside observer can gauge the amount of time they're actually spending as equal.
Uh, no, that's pretty much what I'm saying. Of course they will definitely age at different rates AND their own perception of time is relative to their own point of view as they see time/space. However, those differences are very pronounced (theoretically, of course) at HIGH rates of speed, so when I suggest an actual time difference when discussing children vs. adults, the measurement may appear to be minute even though the perception by each is noticable.


What's that guy's name again? Oh yeah, George Lucas. He specifically said this is the case, and as for my EU source, it's in the first movie - "Traveling through hyperspace isn't like dusting crops, boy!" and "Aw, we've come out of hyperspace into a meteor shower." and "They have just made the jump into hyperspace." - the use of "into", "out of" and "through" suggest it's a separate space from regular space. And as for the interference from stellar bodies into hyperspace, "Without precise calculations we could fly right through a star or bounce too close to a supernova and that'd end your trip real quick, wouldn't it?" Lucas even says that navigating the limited hyperspace access routes are what Han is talking about when he says he made the Kessel Run in 12 parsecs - measuring the amount of distance taken in the route rather than the time it took.
I'm not going to say you're wrong, but you are inferring quite a bit from just a couple of words. That same bit of dialogue to me suggests that Han must calculate the path the ship must steer around objects in space as it travels really fast, not that he is going into a wormhole or anything of the sort. More to the point, if that is how they do travel in the Star Wars Universe, we would never have seen Han attempt the "jump" as soon as he had the chance in ESB when he came out of the asteroid. He would have had to manuever until he found an onramp. Because that situation never occurs even once in any of six films, I'm prone to not side with the inferrence that you are suggesting.

It's a silly argument/discussion to be having in any case. Time for a vodka-tonic. :)

decadentdave
01-11-2007, 01:35 PM
I'm not going to say you're wrong, but you are inferring quite a bit from just a couple of words. That same bit of dialogue to me suggests that Han must calculate the path the ship must steer around objects in space as it travels really fast, not that he is going into a wormhole or anything of the sort. More to the point, if that is how they do travel in the Star Wars Universe, we would never have seen Han attempt the "jump" as soon as he had the chance in ESB when he came out of the asteroid. He would have had to manuever until he found an onramp. Because that situation never occurs even once in any of six films, I'm prone to not side with the inferrence that you are suggesting.


That was how I understood hyperspace. He's making calculations with the Nav computer to plot a FTL speed travel, not actually entering into a wormhole or 4th dimensional space. What it does not compensate for, however, is unforeseen random variables like asteroids (look what happened in Star Trek when the asteroid was pulled into the wormhole with the Enterprise) or other debris in space (or how about other ships?) that could be in the way. He could avoid flying right through a star or bouncing to close to a supernova but what about those? Granted the odds are pretty astronomical but there is still that one in a million (or as Threepio would calculate to Han's objections 3,720 to 1) chance that something could get in the way of his last known calculated trajectory.

JediTricks
01-14-2007, 01:29 AM
Uh, no, that's pretty much what I'm saying. Of course they will definitely age at different rates AND their own perception of time is relative to their own point of view as they see time/space. However, those differences are very pronounced (theoretically, of course) at HIGH rates of speed, so when I suggest an actual time difference when discussing children vs. adults, the measurement may appear to be minute even though the perception by each is noticable.But again, what I'm saying is that to an outside observer, there is no difference between the 2, they age at the same speed, the difference is only based on the perception of the individuals.


I'm not going to say you're wrong, but you are inferring quite a bit from just a couple of words. That same bit of dialogue to me suggests that Han must calculate the path the ship must steer around objects in space as it travels really fast, not that he is going into a wormhole or anything of the sort. More to the point, if that is how they do travel in the Star Wars Universe, we would never have seen Han attempt the "jump" as soon as he had the chance in ESB when he came out of the asteroid. He would have had to manuever until he found an onramp. Because that situation never occurs even once in any of six films, I'm prone to not side with the inferrence that you are suggesting.First off, I'm not talking about "wormholes", I'm formally severing any usage of it on my end because it's misleading and not what I'm talking about, I never used it and I don't wish it to be attributed it to my statements as if it were.

Now then, as to "steering" in hyperspace, we have NO idea if that is true, we've never seen any such thing, Han's navigations are made before he makes the jump, it is just as likely to say he's ensuring he doesn't use an unsafe route that is too close to a stellar body. And we have no idea if Han's already calculated the jump before attempting it in ESB.



What it does not compensate for, however, is unforeseen random variables like asteroids (look what happened in Star Trek when the asteroid was pulled into the wormhole with the Enterprise) or other debris in space (or how about other ships?) that could be in the way. He could avoid flying right through a star or bouncing to close to a supernova but what about those? Granted the odds are pretty astronomical but there is still that one in a million (or as Threepio would calculate to Han's objections 3,720 to 1) chance that something could get in the way of his last known calculated trajectory.In fact, look at ANH again, when Han comes out of Hyperspace the first time, he does so in the middle of an asteroid field that used to be Alderaan, if he was flying FTL in normalspace the Falcon would have been pulverized the second she crossed paths with a single speck of dust at 1.5 past lightspeed, much less the planetary debris or the gravitational field of the Alderaanian debris (the debris is still in that location and will still have the same graviational pull because it has the same mass even though it's in smaller pieces).

decadentdave
01-14-2007, 01:56 AM
First off, I'm not talking about "wormholes", I'm formally severing any usage of it on my end because it's misleading and not what I'm talking about, I never used it and I don't wish it to be attributed it to my statements as if it were.

Now then, as to "steering" in hyperspace, we have NO idea if that is true, we've never seen any such thing, Han's navigations are made before he makes the jump, it is just as likely to say he's ensuring he doesn't use an unsafe route that is too close to a stellar body. And we have no idea if Han's already calculated the jump before attempting it in ESB.

In fact, look at ANH again, when Han comes out of Hyperspace the first time, he does so in the middle of an asteroid field that used to be Alderaan, if he was flying FTL in normalspace the Falcon would have been pulverized the second she crossed paths with a single speck of dust at 1.5 past lightspeed, much less the planetary debris or the gravitational field of the Alderaanian debris (the debris is still in that location and will still have the same graviational pull because it has the same mass even though it's in smaller pieces).

So essentially you are contradicting yourself. You denounce any kind of idea that Hyperspace is a Wormhole yet you say that flying through hyperspace into the middle of an asteroid field somehow protects them from intersteller objects or debris? So, let me get this straight, if Han had not come out of hyperspace at Alderaan's last known position and for the sake of argument continued along the same calculated trajectory he would have traveled "through" the asteroid field without being pulverized because Hyperspace exists in fourth dimensional space, in other words, it's a "Wormhole." Gotcha.

JediTricks
01-14-2007, 06:37 AM
It is not a wormhole in that it is not a "shortcut" through space/time, a wormhole is a tunnel which cuts "between" points in space, a connection that is shorter than a straight line thus somehow BEYOND linear, like the wormhole on Star Trek Deep Space Nine or the Stargate on that epyonymous series. I was thinking of hyperspace more like a sewer system under a city, it's the same city overlay because it occupies the same area, but it's at a different level and only as a system of tunnels rather than wide open spaces.

stillakid
01-14-2007, 09:42 AM
It is not a wormhole in that it is not a "shortcut" through space/time, a wormhole is a tunnel which cuts "between" points in space, a connection that is shorter than a straight line thus somehow BEYOND linear, like the wormhole on Star Trek Deep Space Nine or the Stargate on that epyonymous series. I was thinking of hyperspace more like a sewer system under a city, it's the same city overlay because it occupies the same area, but it's at a different level and only as a system of tunnels rather than wide open spaces.

Ok, so lets use your analogy for a second and assume that the Falcon is a rat moving very quickly through the sewer. The buildings on top are stars, supernova, planets, and asteroid fields. You're saying that by travelling through the sewer system, the rat can avoid hitting any of those things. He then "jumps" out of the sewer near the space he wishes through a manhole cover.

We don't get a lot of explanation/narrative regarding the nature of Hyperspace in the films, but why would Han say that he could "fly right through a star" if Hyperspace enables the rat to move in the sewer below all of that? Or do stars somehow exist in both dimensions?

decadentdave
01-14-2007, 10:44 AM
It is not a wormhole in that it is not a "shortcut" through space/time, a wormhole is a tunnel which cuts "between" points in space, a connection that is shorter than a straight line thus somehow BEYOND linear, like the wormhole on Star Trek Deep Space Nine or the Stargate on that epyonymous series. I was thinking of hyperspace more like a sewer system under a city, it's the same city overlay because it occupies the same area, but it's at a different level and only as a system of tunnels rather than wide open spaces.

So in other words Hyperspace is still a fourth dimensional conduit connecting two points along the space/time continuum. If the Falcon can "fly right through a star" then what's the problem? According to your explanation it should be impervious to any mass object in normal three dimensional space. Velocity is still a factor (.5 past lightspeed) but in Star Trek and Stargate they are warping space to make the distance relatively shorter but velocity is still a (warp) factor so hyperspace is based along the same relative principal. In Babylon 5 jump gates are used as "on-ramps" to enter into hyperspace while some ships (Vorlon, Minbari, etc) have the capability of generating their own jump gate (warp field) to enter into a hyperspace conduit. It is still fourth-dimensional space because it is affecting relative linear space/time.

decadentdave
01-14-2007, 10:54 AM
Here is the Wikipedia entry for Hyperspace: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperspace_%28science_fiction%29

It even refers to Hyperspace as a "Wormhole" and references Star Trek:


A different concept, sometimes also referred to as 'hyperspace' and similarly used to explain FTL travel in fiction, is that the manifold of ordinary three-dimensional space is curved in four or more 'higher' spacial dimensions (a 'hyperspace' in the geometric sense; see hypersurface (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypersurface), tesseract (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesseract), Flatland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatland)). This curvature causes certain widely separated points in three-dimensional space to nonetheless be 'adjacent' to each other four-dimensionally. Creating an aperture in 4D space (a wormhole (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wormhole)) between these locations can allow instantaneous transit between the two locations; a common comparison is that of a folded piece of paper, where a hole punched through two folded sections is more direct than a line drawn between them on the sheet. This idea probably arose out of certain popular descriptions of General Relativity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Relativity) and/or Riemannian manifolds (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riemannian_manifold), and may be the original form from which later concepts of hyperspace arose. This form often restricts FTL travel to specific 'jump points'. See jump drive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jump_drive), Alcubierre drive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive).

JediTricks
01-18-2007, 08:10 PM
Ok, so lets use your analogy for a second and assume that the Falcon is a rat moving very quickly through the sewer. The buildings on top are stars, supernova, planets, and asteroid fields. You're saying that by travelling through the sewer system, the rat can avoid hitting any of those things. He then "jumps" out of the sewer near the space he wishes through a manhole cover.

We don't get a lot of explanation/narrative regarding the nature of Hyperspace in the films, but why would Han say that he could "fly right through a star" if Hyperspace enables the rat to move in the sewer below all of that? Or do stars somehow exist in both dimensions?This is how we got started on this topic of discussion in the first place: 522422
The part that specifically responds to your question is when I said:

Both subspace and hyperspace can be affected by the affects of large normal-space objects such as the gravitational pulls of stars.
BTW, the flaw in my sewer analogy is that with hyperspace exiting does not need a manhole cover or storm drain, but no analogy is perfect for this.



So in other words Hyperspace is still a fourth dimensional conduit connecting two points along the space/time continuum.That part is correct, but the difference between hyperspace travel and wormhole travel is that a wormhole connects the 2 points through a shortened path, one that requires the user to travel less distance than normal space would; a trip through hyperspace the user is travelling the same distance between the 2 points as he would in normal space, just at greatly faster speeds.


If the Falcon can "fly right through a star" then what's the problem? Wormhole travel does not go through the star, it avoids that path altogether by connecting the 2 points through a new dimension that is a shortcut requiring less travel distance than that of normal space.


According to your explanation it should be impervious to any mass object in normal three dimensional space. No, I explained this in my first mention of hyperspace, read my last paragraph responding to stilla in this post.


Velocity is still a factor (.5 past lightspeed) but in Star Trek and Stargate they are warping space to make the distance relatively shorterYou are incorrect about Star Trek, warp speed is not warping space to connect 2 points via a wormhole, it is warping the space around a starship to phase it into subspace so that it can travel FTL without running into Einstein's paradox that travelling at lightspeed would require an infinite amount of energy. Warp speed is essentially lessening the affect of the laws of physics on the ship by putting it partly into a dimension where that law is not a factor. Thus, the Enterprise is still traversing those space miles, just at a much faster rate of speed and partly in another dimension.



Here is the Wikipedia entry for Hyperspace: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperspace_%28science_fiction%29

It even refers to Hyperspace as a "Wormhole" and references Star Trek:
Yes, but that specifically starts that paragraph off with the phrase "A different concept". It is not referring to Star Wars' version of hyperspace when talking about wormhole travel, it is referring to a different fictional universe's usage of the term "hyperspace".

stillakid
01-18-2007, 08:56 PM
a trip through hyperspace the user is travelling the same distance between the 2 points as he would in normal space, just at greatly faster speeds.

Uh, yeah, isn't that precisely what I've been saying but you've been disagreeing with? :confused: Hyperspace is travel at a really really fast speed from point A to point B. Whether it's in "our" dimensional space or some other fictional "4th dimension" or whatever has no bearing whatsoever on the question. Your "nav computer" calculates a route that avoids hitting a star or something equally big, you hit the gas pedal and go. Bam. Hyperspace.

decadentdave
01-19-2007, 03:50 AM
But even with FTL velocity (warp speed or hyperspace) as a function of astronomical travel (parsec, lightyear, etc) you still cannot escape the fundamental theoretical problem of time dilation. With a wormhole connecting two points across vast distances you can minimize this but warping or jumping into hyperspace you are saying that the same spatial distance is traversed at exponentially faster than light speeds. This also brings up another problem I always had with Star Trek sending subspace communications in real-time. Theoretically impossible. Space IS time so even "subspace" transmissions could not be received lightyears away a mere fraction of a millisecond after the transmission is sent. If this were possible then it would also be possible to just "beam" people across the galaxy instead of travelling in a starship. Again, it all makes for convenient fiction but the empirical plausibility of which cannot be surmised and why the idea of which is relegated to the category of science "fiction" not science "fact."

JediTricks
01-20-2007, 04:28 PM
Uh, yeah, isn't that precisely what I've been saying but you've been disagreeing with? :confused: Hyperspace is travel at a really really fast speed from point A to point B. Whether it's in "our" dimensional space or some other fictional "4th dimension" or whatever has no bearing whatsoever on the question. Your "nav computer" calculates a route that avoids hitting a star or something equally big, you hit the gas pedal and go. Bam. Hyperspace.Uh, no, that's not because even though they're traversing the same distance it's not taking place IN normalspace and that's the difference; plus every time you refer to it as a "wormhole" that suggests the travellers are taking a shortcut by connecting 2 points through a "fold" in space. Hyperspace travel is not in taking place in normalspace, that's a significant difference, their engines aren't just pushing them FTL through normalspace like giving them a big push the way you're suggesting, their engines are jumping them into hyperspace and then propelling them through that instead of normalspace, it's not about just going fast in normalspace and then flying around everything.



But even with FTL velocity (warp speed or hyperspace) as a function of astronomical travel (parsec, lightyear, etc) you still cannot escape the fundamental theoretical problem of time dilation. With a wormhole connecting two points across vast distances you can minimize this but warping or jumping into hyperspace you are saying that the same spatial distance is traversed at exponentially faster than light speeds. This also brings up another problem I always had with Star Trek sending subspace communications in real-time. Theoretically impossible. Space IS time so even "subspace" transmissions could not be received lightyears away a mere fraction of a millisecond after the transmission is sent. If this were possible then it would also be possible to just "beam" people across the galaxy instead of travelling in a starship. Again, it all makes for convenient fiction but the empirical plausibility of which cannot be surmised and why the idea of which is relegated to the category of science "fiction" not science "fact."Actually, escaping the theoretical problem of time dilation is exactly what hyperspace, subspace, warp speed, that stuff is doing, by putting their ships into space/dimensions where those laws of physics aren't being broken, the notion of Einstein's relativity issue becomes moot because they aren't traveling FTL in normalspace. It's simply an issue of travel again, we don't suggest that man's trips to the moon were at risk of time dilation, they were just travel at greater speeds with no worries about the Einstein factor as it only applies to normalspace 3-dimensional FTL travel. Relativity says that time cannot be separated from space in our 3 dimensions, but says nothing about what other dimensions' rules are on that.


This also brings up another problem I always had with Star Trek sending subspace communications in real-time. Theoretically impossible. Space IS time so even "subspace" transmissions could not be received lightyears away a mere fraction of a millisecond after the transmission is sent. If this were possible then it would also be possible to just "beam" people across the galaxy instead of travelling in a starship. Again, it all makes for convenient fiction but the empirical plausibility of which cannot be surmised and why the idea of which is relegated to the category of science "fiction" not science "fact."Subspace communications take place at great speeds across vast distances in a dimension where they can travel at FTL speeds without the whole relativity-busting aspect, but are very simple compared to transporters. Transporters are not merely data-transfer conduits, they break down, store, and transfer the energies of the subject while keeping them in a current state of time and then use sensors to reassemble them at the target location, so that cannot be done via long distances of subspace (except on "Enterprise" where they went and did funky weird stuff there, but that intentionally left out the quantum factor and had a second transporter to receive the energy patterns and data so it could use its own sensors and systems to rebuild it).

stillakid
01-20-2007, 05:24 PM
Uh, no, that's not because even though they're traversing the same distance it's not taking place IN normalspace and that's the difference; plus every time you refer to it as a "wormhole" that suggests the travellers are taking a shortcut by connecting 2 points through a "fold" in space. Hyperspace travel is not in taking place in normalspace, that's a significant difference, their engines aren't just pushing them FTL through normalspace like giving them a big push the way you're suggesting, their engines are jumping them into hyperspace and then propelling them through that instead of normalspace, it's not about just going fast in normalspace and then flying around everything.

I'm not quite sure what you're arguing at this point. This is what "we've" been saying all along. :confused: Even the way you describe it, Hyperspace IS precisely a ship jumping "into" this theoretical other dimension then just going really really fast to get from point A to point B. The only presumed benefit to being in this other dimension that you've only now just brought into the discussion is that this other dimension provides the "out" for the age/time difference that one would otherwise experience in "normal" time/space. Otherwise, there is absolutely no other reason to even bother with jumping into this "hyperspace" because they can still "fly right through a star" or "bounce to close to a supernova" just like they could in normal space. Hyperspace just keeps 'em young...well, technically, it just keeps everyone outside of Hyperspace young! :yes:

In terms of the "wormhole" thing, that was all yours in suggesting that they have to get into hyperspace "somewhere." But as we've seen, the Star Wars Universe doesn't put that onramp demand on the passengers so we already know that this concept was never an issue.

decadentdave
01-21-2007, 01:06 AM
I was just trying to follow Jeditricks' circular logic because he contradicted himself so many times and every time we brought up another point it was like "yes but it doesn't affect the fourth-dimensional laws of physics." Point is, Hyperspace and Wormholes are fourth-dimensional modes of travel although I am not entirely convinced that it completely negates the arguement of time dilation with relation to three-dimensional relative physics but there is little doubt that it bends them. Look at the Space-Gate from the monolith in 2001... Bowman entered the monolith into fourth-dimensional space and was accelerated at incredible velocities taking him back in time to witness creation itself and his POV hyperdimensionally was juxtaposed between various stages of his life and death and metaphysical rebirth as the Star Child. At one point in Bowman's psychedellic hypserspace odyssey we see several colorful diamond-shaped patterns which could possibly be portals to alternate universes and timelines (that was always my interpretation of it anyhow). Of course all of this imagery is subjective but it implies such fascinating and complex theoretical ideas in a highly sophisticated and intellectually artistic way.

plasticfetish
01-21-2007, 03:12 AM
And you guys think 2001 is boring. ;)

There was a young lady of Wight,
Who traveled much faster than light,
She departed one day,
In a relative way,
And arrived on the previous night.

stillakid
01-21-2007, 05:54 AM
I was just trying to follow Jeditricks' circular logic because he contradicted himself so many times and every time we brought up another point it was like "yes but it doesn't affect the fourth-dimensional laws of physics." Point is, Hyperspace and Wormholes are fourth-dimensional modes of travel although I am not entirely convinced that it completely negates the arguement of time dilation with relation to three-dimensional relative physics but there is little doubt that it bends them. Look at the Space-Gate from the monolith in 2001... Bowman entered the monolith into fourth-dimensional space and was accelerated at incredible velocities taking him back in time to witness creation itself and his POV hyperdimensionally was juxtaposed between various stages of his life and death and metaphysical rebirth as the Star Child. At one point in Bowman's psychedellic hypserspace odyssey we see several colorful diamond-shaped patterns which could possibly be portals to alternate universes and timelines (that was always my interpretation of it anyhow). Of course all of this imagery is subjective but it implies such fascinating and complex theoretical ideas in a highly sophisticated and intellectually artistic way.


Hmmm. And Star Wars only has those swirly wavy white lines. :(

JediTricks
01-21-2007, 06:02 AM
I'm not quite sure what you're arguing at this point. This is what "we've" been saying all along. :confused: If by that you mean you argued the exact opposite which began all this, then sure. I was talking about greater speeds because they were in a separate dimension. You said that Star Wars travel was simply to turn on the engines and go real fast, I countered by saying that in fact it was not that simple because the ships aren't merely going real fast in normalspace but must first enter a hyperspace dimension to achieve that speed, Dave added that taking place in normal 3d space has another flaw in that they'd run into space debris.


Hyperspace is travel at a really really fast speed from point A to point B. Whether it's in "our" dimensional space or some other fictional "4th dimension" or whatever has no bearing whatsoever on the question. Your "nav computer" calculates a route that avoids hitting a star or something equally big, you hit the gas pedal and go. Bam. Hyperspace.That's not what you were saying:
from 522862



That's not accurate, Star Wars' method of FTL travel is actually somewhat similar to Star Trek's in that to achieve FTL speeds they have to dump their ships into another dimension, Star Trek has "subspace" while Star Wars has "hyperspace" - the biggest difference being that Star Trek's subspace is everywhere and they can phase into it at varying degrees for different speeds, while Star Wars' hyperspace appears to be a system of tunnels that can only be entered and exited in certain ways. Both subspace and hyperspace can be affected by the affects of large normal-space objects such as the gravitational pulls of stars.Says who? You must have gotten that from some random EU source. Watching the films themselves, we never have any indication that any kind of wormhole method is used. The "nav" computer plots a course through space and the ship ZOOMS off in that direction really fast. There has never been a case where they had to pilot over to an onramp to travel from one place to another.

And the follow up in the later post:


What's that guy's name again? Oh yeah, George Lucas. He specifically said this is the case, and as for my EU source, it's in the first movie - "Traveling through hyperspace isn't like dusting crops, boy!" and "Aw, we've come out of hyperspace into a meteor shower." and "They have just made the jump into hyperspace." - the use of "into", "out of" and "through" suggest it's a separate space from regular space. And as for the interference from stellar bodies into hyperspace, "Without precise calculations we could fly right through a star or bounce too close to a supernova and that'd end your trip real quick, wouldn't it?" Lucas even says that navigating the limited hyperspace access routes are what Han is talking about when he says he made the Kessel Run in 12 parsecs - measuring the amount of distance taken in the route rather than the time it took.I'm not going to say you're wrong, but you are inferring quite a bit from just a couple of words. That same bit of dialogue to me suggests that Han must calculate the path the ship must steer around objects in space as it travels really fast, not that he is going into a wormhole or anything of the sort. More to the point, if that is how they do travel in the Star Wars Universe, we would never have seen Han attempt the "jump" as soon as he had the chance in ESB when he came out of the asteroid. He would have had to manuever until he found an onramp. Because that situation never occurs even once in any of six films, I'm prone to not side with the inferrence that you are suggesting.You are VERY specific about not agreeing with the 4th-dimensional stuff, don't play it out like that's not the case.


The only presumed benefit to being in this other dimension that you've only now just brought into the discussion is that this other dimension provides the "out" for the age/time difference that one would otherwise experience in "normal" time/space. Otherwise, there is absolutely no other reason to even bother with jumping into this "hyperspace" because they can still "fly right through a star" or "bounce to close to a supernova" just like they could in normal space.The benefits are going FTL while getting around the Speed of Light reletivity barrier AND avoiding space debris and ships and stuff that isn't a significant stellar body.


In terms of the "wormhole" thing, that was all yours in suggesting that they have to get into hyperspace "somewhere." But as we've seen, the Star Wars Universe doesn't put that onramp demand on the passengers so we already know that this concept was never an issue.What I said was "Star Wars' hyperspace appears to be a system of tunnels that can only be entered and exited in certain ways" but I didn't say at certain places, you are the one who has been inferring that the whole time. I also said "the use of "into", "out of" and "through" suggest it's a separate space from regular space", which doesn't suggest set jumppoints. And I said "as to "steering" in hyperspace, we have NO idea if that is true, we've never seen any such thing, Han's navigations are made before he makes the jump, it is just as likely to say he's ensuring he doesn't use an unsafe route that is too close to a stellar body. And we have no idea if Han's already calculated the jump before attempting it in ESB" which again does not say anything about the falcon flying into a space-hole, only about finding and using a safe hyperspace route. I can't help that you were using the tunnel analogy more literally than intended.



I was just trying to follow Jeditricks' circular logic because he contradicted himself so many times and every time we brought up another point it was like "yes but it doesn't affect the fourth-dimensional laws of physics." Point is, Hyperspace and Wormholes are fourth-dimensional modes of travelThat's not a contradiction I made, what I've been saying is they're not the SAME kind of 4th-dimensional travel. I was trying to be very clear on the fact that Hyperspace wasn't point-to-point spacial folding the way a Wormhole is, I didn't even use the term wormhole, that was Stilla's incorrect explanation of what I was saying.


although I am not entirely convinced that it completely negates the arguement of time dilation with relation to three-dimensional relative physics but there is little doubt that it bends them.Warp speed, hyperspace, wormholes, they're all fictional constructs specifically intended to negate the Speed of Light relativity barrier, within those fictional universes they DO negate them because the writers say they do - that's the very point, otherwise every time the Defiant took a trip at warp speed to Cardassia for a couple days of diplomacy and came back there'd be several new generations of people running DS9.


All of these theories about Special Relativity remind me of that Star Trek episode "Wink of an Eye" where those Ensign Expendibles were turned into salt cubes. Anyway, the point is they were moving and existing at highly accelerated speeds that made them invisible to our constant perception of time and space. The only indication we had to their presence in the same spatial plane was a "buzzing" sound.You mixed your Trek, Wink of an Eye has everything you mentioned except the salt cubes, in Wink of an Eye if their cellular makeup is damaged in any way such as being scratched, they turn old super fast and die but stay an old guy after they die. (The revamped ep was on last Sunday night, the new version of their city looked amazing.) The one where the redshirts got turned into salt cubes was "By Any Other Name".


Hmmm. And Star Wars only has those swirly wavy white lines. :(
It also has the white streaking stars and then a blue swirly tube. Better than Trek with just white streaking stars that move, or Star Trek TOS with just regular moving stars. Then again, 2001's star gate sequence and ending are incredibly vague leading to dozens of theories about their meaning.

decadentdave
01-21-2007, 10:40 AM
JediTricks, your name wouldn't happen to be Josh would it? lol

As for Trek, it's been so long since I've actually watched those shows that maybe I was getting the two episodes confused. I don't consider myself a Trekkie which is probably the reason why I can enjoy Nemesis while all of the Trek nerds hate it because (OMG) they killed Data! :shocked:

stillakid
01-21-2007, 12:11 PM
the ships aren't merely going real fast in normalspace but must first enter a hyperspace dimension to achieve that speed,
Okay, so...




You are VERY specific about not agreeing with the 4th-dimensional stuff, don't play it out like that's not the case.
No. I was VERY specific about them not getting to an onramp to get into this other dimension where they travel really really fast to get from point A to point B. You are advocating that they have to get into this other dimension in order to go really really fast. Whether that's true or not, I was merely saying that they didn't have to look for an onramp, not that they didn't have to go into some other dimension or something of the sort.


The benefits are going FTL while getting around the Speed of Light reletivity barrier AND avoiding space debris and ships and stuff that isn't a significant stellar body.
Not at all. If that was true, then they'd just have to enter this "hyperspace" and go. Now, if we look carefully at the films, we know that in ANH where the "rules" are established, we know that Solo has to "take a few moments to get the coordinates from the nav computer" so the ship doesn't "fly right through a star or bounce too close to a supernova." By needing coordinates, we can assume that the ship must fly a specific route either A) to get into Hyperspace so that it doesn't run into trouble, or B) fly a specific route after the ship is in Hyperspace so that it doesn't run into trouble.

This extended time in the story only took place once. Every other "jump" or attempt afterwards just happened without any of the calculation pretense. We should assume from that that it is a function of being economical with the fiction in that the storyteller doesn't feel the need to reexplain the process every time. In other words, we should assume that his "getting the calculations from the nav computer" occurs every time before a ship makes the jump.

That said, once there, the ship is still in danger of hitting something like a star or supernova unless the proper calculations are made. This means that at the very least, large mass objects like stars and supernovas still have influence within Hyperspace.

So, we KNOW that much. After that, you infer quite a bit based on ?, such as:



What I said was "Star Wars' hyperspace appears to be a system of tunnels that can only be entered and exited in certain ways" but I didn't say at certain places, you are the one who has been inferring that the whole time. I also said "the use of "into", "out of" and "through" suggest it's a separate space from regular space", which doesn't suggest set jumppoints. And I said "as to "steering" in hyperspace, we have NO idea if that is true, we've never seen any such thing, Han's navigations are made before he makes the jump, it is just as likely to say he's ensuring he doesn't use an unsafe route that is too close to a stellar body. And we have no idea if Han's already calculated the jump before attempting it in ESB" which again does not say anything about the falcon flying into a space-hole, only about finding and using a safe hyperspace route. I can't help that you were using the tunnel analogy more literally than intended.

How many ways are there to use a tunnel analogy? A tunnel or system of tunnels is just a tunnel or system of tunnels. Is there some other interpretation of tunnel that I'm missing?








It also has the white streaking stars and then a blue swirly tube. Better than Trek with just white streaking stars that move, or Star Trek TOS with just regular moving stars. Then again, 2001's star gate sequence and ending are incredibly vague leading to dozens of theories about their meaning.
And technically, Star Wars also has "normal" starfields as evidenced after the Falcon escaped from the Death Star in ANH. We see "normal" stars as Luke and Han talk about Leia. So, where does that fit into all of this? :p

decadentdave
01-21-2007, 10:32 PM
No. I was VERY specific about them not getting to an onramp to get into this other dimension where they travel really really fast to get from point A to point B. You are advocating that they have to get into this other dimension in order to go really really fast. Whether that's true or not, I was merely saying that they didn't have to look for an onramp, not that they didn't have to go into some other dimension or something of the sort.

Most capital ships and even small fighter crafts post-Clone Wars appear to have been equipped with hyperdrive. We know that pre-Empire era, smaller sublight fighters did not employ hyperdrive technology which is why Obi-Wan had to dock with a special hyperdrive ring module in order to engage in hyperspace. The same can be applied to Star Trek. Not all ships in the Star Trek universe have warp drive capability. And in Babylon 5, most ships had to use jump-gates as hypserspace on-ramps in order to achieve hyperspace travel. I guess the better analogy of hypespace is that it is like a highway that bypasses the normal sub-light velocities once you hit the light-speed barrier. Three factors affect the equation... Velocity x Distance x Time. The higher the factor of velocity (Warp 8 or .5 past light speed for example) you have exceeded the normal time-light barrier and are traveling across vast astronomical distances through space in a shorter amount of (perceived) time. Now, how they are able to get around the time paradox is still questionable here. Fourth-dimensionally, it theoretically should have no bearing on these little hops through space but I have never heard of a satisfactory explanation that explains this which is probably why the writers just avoid the whole fundamental problem altogether by not even addressing it and for the sake of story I can see why they would.



Not at all. If that was true, then they'd just have to enter this "hyperspace" and go. Now, if we look carefully at the films, we know that in ANH where the "rules" are established, we know that Solo has to "take a few moments to get the coordinates from the nav computer" so the ship doesn't "fly right through a star or bounce too close to a supernova." By needing coordinates, we can assume that the ship must fly a specific route either A) to get into Hyperspace so that it doesn't run into trouble, or B) fly a specific route after the ship is in Hyperspace so that it doesn't run into trouble.

This extended time in the story only took place once. Every other "jump" or attempt afterwards just happened without any of the calculation pretense. We should assume from that that it is a function of being economical with the fiction in that the storyteller doesn't feel the need to reexplain the process every time. In other words, we should assume that his "getting the calculations from the nav computer" occurs every time before a ship makes the jump.

That said, once there, the ship is still in danger of hitting something like a star or supernova unless the proper calculations are made. This means that at the very least, large mass objects like stars and supernovas still have influence within Hyperspace. And they do even in wormholes. Look at the example in Star Trek: TMP with the asteroid near-collision in the wormhole. The Enterprise's matter/anti-matter matrix imbalance created a wormhole when they engaged the warp drive (which was corrected by Spock when he provided the correct matrix equation into the Warp Drive) so by traveling at warp velocities, they are not entering a wormhole, they are traveling through normal space at FTL velocities as Spock would say "We will arrive at so-and-so in 12.5 hours at warp factor 8." The warp drive is "bending" the time-space continuum around them as they are jettisoning across third-dimensional space. The warp nacelles are like pontoons skimming across the surface of water. I guess this is where JT's vague explanation that it creates some kind of "shell" around the ship to protect them from the relative problem of time dilation but I'm not buying it. It's pretty far-fetched and the reason why all of this is still a fictional construct and why we can continue to argue and debate the physics of which ad nauseum because none of which has ever been proven empirically and remains in the pervue of theoretical physics.



How many ways are there to use a tunnel analogy? A tunnel or system of tunnels is just a tunnel or system of tunnels. Is there some other interpretation of tunnel that I'm missing?
I think the sewer tunnel analogy was a very poor analogy used by JediTricks. Hyperspace is not a network of tunnels. They are still negotiating normal space at FTL velocities. This is why I have a problem with time dilation and why JT contradicts himself by saying they are entering a fourth-dimensional "tunnel" outside of normal spacial relativity but they are still traveling across the same three-dimensional spatial distance. If they were entering a wormhole it would be a direct shortcut through the three-dimensional plane but the nav-computer is calculating a trajectory to maneuver around stars, planets, etc but it still cannot calculate the unforeseeable collision of debris, ships, etc. that might, albeit the odds are astronomically slim, chance that they might cross the path of travel at the precise point in space and time. That might make for an interesting story someday in either the Star Wars or Star Trek universe where a ship unexpectedly collided with an object and was destroyed or damaged and is adrift in space and sends out an S.O.S.



And technically, Star Wars also has "normal" starfields as evidenced after the Falcon escaped from the Death Star in ANH. We see "normal" stars as Luke and Han talk about Leia. So, where does that fit into all of this? :pEven the starfields in the Trek universe are elongated and change to a spectrum of light as they streak by when the Enterprise goes into warp speed. There's that word again... speed. Both Hyperspace and Warp "speed" are exponential factors of FTL velocities.

stillakid
01-21-2007, 10:42 PM
Just to add fuel to the fire, and I know that this discussion exists somewhere in the ones and zeros of the SSG archives... but there is that issue of non-hyperspace travel from one place to another in Star Wars. The most obvious example is in ESB when the Falcon cannot enter Hyperspace. Somehow it makes it from the asteroid field, which we have to assume is relatively near the Hoth system, to the "Lando system" :D in "normal" space/time pretty damn quick. Obviously it is a story-convenience that isn't meant to be parsed, but if we want to try to examine this issue of Hyperspace in Star Wars and faster-than-light travel in other stories, then every instance is certainly fair game for discussion.

decadentdave
01-21-2007, 10:50 PM
In Empire, the Falcon piggy-backed onto the Star Destroyer after the pursuit in the asteroid belt. Although it was not shown, we can infer that they may have made another hyperspace jump while we were watching Luke on Dagobah or that the Noat System where Bespin was located was "pretty far but I think we can make" at sublight speed. Again, even going from system-to-system at sublight would take years. Han, Leia and Chewie would either be very old or dead by the time they made it to the other star system going at sublight speed.

stillakid
01-22-2007, 12:08 AM
In Empire, the Falcon piggy-backed onto the Star Destroyer after the pursuit in the asteroid belt. Although it was not shown, we can infer that they may have made another hyperspace jump while we were watching Luke on Dagobah or that the Noat System where Bespin was located was "pretty far but I think we can make" at sublight speed. Again, even going from system-to-system at sublight would take years. Han, Leia and Chewie would either be very old or dead by the time they made it to the other star system going at sublight speed.


They blasted off of Hoth and right into a chase from Star Destroyers. At sublight speed, they flew right into an asteroid field. They hung out in the mouth of a sock puppet for awhile then flew back into the fray. Without making the calculations for the jump to lightspeed, Han attempts to make the jump, but fails. He turns the boat around and does the trick of landing on the Destroyer. He detaches and then makes the sublight journey to the Lando System with Fett in pursuit.

2-1B
01-22-2007, 12:25 AM
Right, they dumped the garbage before jumping to lightspeed.

decadentdave
01-22-2007, 02:49 AM
Which is why I said they either made an off-screen jump while piggy-backing on the Star Destroyer or the Noat system must be really really really close to the Hoth system because for them to make the journey from the asteroid belt to Bespin in a matter of hours at sublight must have been like flying to a nearby planet in the SAME solar system. It's about as improbable as making the Kessel Run in less than 12 parsecs (and I'd rather not bring THAT old debate into this so we'll leave it at that).

JediTricks
01-22-2007, 09:23 PM
JediTricks, your name wouldn't happen to be Josh would it? lolNope.


As for Trek, it's been so long since I've actually watched those shows that maybe I was getting the two episodes confused. I don't consider myself a Trekkie which is probably the reason why I can enjoy Nemesis while all of the Trek nerds hate it because (OMG) they killed Data! :shocked:I hated Nemesis because it's a sloppy, badly-written movie and they killed Data for no reason - slap a transport beacon on Picard but not himself for why?



No. I was VERY specific about them not getting to an onramp to get into this other dimension where they travel really really fast to get from point A to point B. You are advocating that they have to get into this other dimension in order to go really really fast. Whether that's true or not, I was merely saying that they didn't have to look for an onramp, not that they didn't have to go into some other dimension or something of the sort.Read the examples of your text that I cited above, you weren't "merely" saying that. Anyway, I never said they had to use an onramp or wormhole or tunnel entrance, you are the one who keeps saying that.

I'll try to explain this using a different analogy, it came to me yesterday... using hyperspace is like navigating an arctic ocean in a submarine, normalspace is crusing on the surface and hyperspace is underwater, a submarine can dive under the surface anywhere it wants, it can pass under small icebergs and such but in order to avoid the large icebergs and glaciers that are portruding deep under the water it needs to plot a safe course around them. In the analogy, you'll have to accept the 2-dimensonal travel at the surface as 3-dimensional space, and the undersea portrusions of the large icebergs and glaciers are the significant gravity-wells created by large spacial bodies. Lucas says that in hyperspace, since there are so many risks of unscouted hyperspace travelling without knowing what's ahead, as well as the constantly-moving positions of destinations in space, that ships only travel predetermined routes, routes that have already been scouted -- in the ocean analogy, that's why I used the arctic part since a lot of it can't just be sailed through easily (I know it's a flawed analogy since there's just as much stuff on the surface, but in theory a ship could be designed with wheels to drive up and over them so uh... go with that).


Not at all. If that was true, then they'd just have to enter this "hyperspace" and go. Now, if we look carefully at the films, we know that in ANH where the "rules" are established, we know that Solo has to "take a few moments to get the coordinates from the nav computer" so the ship doesn't "fly right through a star or bounce too close to a supernova." By needing coordinates, we can assume that the ship must fly a specific route either A) to get into Hyperspace so that it doesn't run into trouble, or B) fly a specific route after the ship is in Hyperspace so that it doesn't run into trouble.Again, we've never seen a ship steering IN hyperspace, so that's far-fetched in my mind. Space is VERY large and constantly moving and there are plenty of things to run into, so it's always going to be complex to plot a course when you sail for something, you can't just point towards it, you have to point towards where it will be when you get there and you have to avoid any other objects that may be in your way. That's just regular space sailing from one planet to the other, every time Han is jumping to hyperspace he is doing so near a planet in a solar system that has other planets and at least 1 large star all close together in the galactic sense so the odds are much greater that he'll run into a gravity well from one of the other celestial bodies in that solar system almost immediately.



And technically, Star Wars also has "normal" starfields as evidenced after the Falcon escaped from the Death Star in ANH. We see "normal" stars as Luke and Han talk about Leia. So, where does that fit into all of this? :pSloppy effects? I wish the new remastered versions of Star Trek TOS had used the movies' warp jump look, the stars moving normally just doesn't convey the sense of speed they're talking about, especially since it looks the same at half impulse.



I guess this is where JT's vague explanation that it creates some kind of "shell" around the ship to protect them from the relative problem of time dilation but I'm not buying it.It's not mine, it's from the shows and was expanded upon by the TNG Technical Manual book. It has a basis in scientific proposals, far-fetched or not. Apparently it's also created a real school of scientific thought about warping just the space around the ship for the propulsion rather than trying to warp the whole universe a la a wormhole - which I might add addresses your claim that I'm somehow contradicting myself over and over as that type of travel is 4th-dimensional but only limited to the area directly ahead and behind the ship so they still have to travel through 3-dimensional space.




Just to add fuel to the fire, and I know that this discussion exists somewhere in the ones and zeros of the SSG archives... but there is that issue of non-hyperspace travel from one place to another in Star Wars. The most obvious example is in ESB when the Falcon cannot enter Hyperspace. Somehow it makes it from the asteroid field, which we have to assume is relatively near the Hoth system, to the "Lando system" :Din "normal" space/time pretty damn quick.Long before we started this ridiculous conversation, my theory was that the ship was making lots of small limited hyperspace hops and it took 2 weeks or longer. They'd get the drive fixed just enough for a short hop before it'd stop working, then flying normalspace for a while until it was ready for another hop.

stillakid
01-22-2007, 09:33 PM
I'll try to explain this using a different analogy, it came to me yesterday... using hyperspace is like navigating an arctic ocean in a submarine, normalspace is crusing on the surface and hyperspace is underwater, a submarine can dive under the surface anywhere it wants, it can pass under small icebergs and such but in order to avoid the large icebergs and glaciers that are portruding deep under the water it needs to plot a safe course around them. In the analogy, you'll have to accept the 2-dimensonal travel at the surface as 3-dimensional space, and the undersea portrusions of the large icebergs and glaciers are the significant gravity-wells created by large spacial bodies. Lucas says that in hyperspace, since there are so many risks of unscouted hyperspace travelling without knowing what's ahead, as well as the constantly-moving positions of destinations in space, that ships only travel predetermined routes, routes that have already been scouted -- in the ocean analogy, that's why I used the arctic part since a lot of it can't just be sailed through easily (I know it's a flawed analogy since there's just as much stuff on the surface, but in theory a ship could be designed with wheels to drive up and over them so uh... go with that).
I'll give you points for that new analogy. :thumbsup:





It's not mine, it's from the shows and was expanded upon by the TNG Technical Manual book. It has a basis in scientific proposals, far-fetched or not. Apparently it's also created a real school of scientific thought about warping just the space around the ship for the propulsion rather than trying to warp the whole universe a la a wormhole - which I might add addresses your claim that I'm somehow contradicting myself over and over as that type of travel is 4th-dimensional but only limited to the area directly ahead and behind the ship so they still have to travel through 3-dimensional space.
Hmm, that's an interesting concept, just warping the space around the ship itself. I haven't let that sink in enough to consider how the theory unfolds, but I'm intrigued enough to go look for more info. Any good real sources that you know of?




Long before we started this ridiculous conversation, my theory was that the ship was making lots of small limited hyperspace hops and it took 2 weeks or longer. They'd get the drive fixed just enough for a short hop before it'd stop working, then flying normalspace for a while until it was ready for another hop.
I suppose if we had to pull some bs out of our collective a**es to explain the unexplainable fictional convenience, that's as good as any. :love: But I'm more inclined to conjure up a fictional sublight engine on the Falcon which pushes them to the brink of lightspeed without actually being able to enter it. That moves them forward quickly for sure, but still has that nasty problem of time/relativity. I just can't go with your short hop theory because there isn't any justification in the story to suggest that it worked intermittently. It was all or nothing. Maybe Han flew back into the sock puppet and got spit out at warp speed!!!! :pleased:

JediTricks
01-25-2007, 07:27 PM
I'll give you points for that new analogy. :thumbsup:Thanks, I appreciate that. Apologies for my previous analogies which didn't properly convey what was in my thoughts and led to confusion.


Hmm, that's an interesting concept, just warping the space around the ship itself. I haven't let that sink in enough to consider how the theory unfolds, but I'm intrigued enough to go look for more info. Any good real sources that you know of?I liked this article, though it got a little dense for me about halfway through and left me boggling:
http://www.npl.washington.edu/av/altvw81.html
Here's the wikipedia article on the warp drive he's talking about: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive

Off topic from that theoretical warp drive, I found this article on my transformers forum strangely, it claims that elecritical signals have been sent FTL already: http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2796



I suppose if we had to pull some bs out of our collective a**es to explain the unexplainable fictional convenience, that's as good as any. :love:Thanks... I think.


But I'm more inclined to conjure up a fictional sublight engine on the Falcon which pushes them to the brink of lightspeed without actually being able to enter it. That moves them forward quickly for sure, but still has that nasty problem of time/relativity. I just can't go with your short hop theory because there isn't any justification in the story to suggest that it worked intermittently. It was all or nothing. Maybe Han flew back into the sock puppet and got spit out at warp speed!!!! :pleased:Yeesh on that last part! :p Within the requirements and confines of the story, my theory fits even if it's not directly said. We know, and Lucas knew even then, that star systems are very far apart so flying just barely sublight to even a nearby system should still take years. We know that when they first try to go into hyperspace leaving Hoth, 3PO says he noticed the hyperdrive motivator was damaged and that it's impossible to go light-speed with that problem, so Han and Chewie try to fix it and then Han takes the Falcon into an asteroid belt. Once they go inside the asteroid belt they attempt more repairs, then get chased into the space slug, we don't really know how much time is spent but Han and Chewie do some repairs before escaping the space slug and resuming being chased by the Empire. When Han is coming out of the asteroid field being chased by a Star Destroyer, he again attempts the jump and AGAIN is surprised that nothing happens - that means he expected his repairs to work that time. So Han does think he can exact repairs on it, and while his first attempts fail, without being chased by Imperial ships he might have more time to get it working part time like I suggested, nothing he's said afterwards says it hasn't worked since before he got to Hoth, just that the hyperdrive is what's wrong with the Falcon.

Bel-Cam Jos
07-09-2010, 07:55 PM
Aside from the fact that no one's orbiting Jupiter, is 1980s 2010 the film close to today's 2010 the world?