 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 08.06.2016 um 14:33 schrieb Le_Forgeron:
> Le 08/06/2016 à 14:18, clipka a écrit :
>> Am 07.06.2016 um 18:02 schrieb Stephen:
>>> On 6/7/2016 4:18 PM, Anthony D. Baye wrote:
>>>> I had an idea for a precursor portal system composed of crystalline
>>>> Doorways.
>>>> The Doorways are not gates, in themselves, but anchor-points. The
>>>> idea was that
>>>> there is really only one "Gate" device, which is so advanced that it
>>>> is not only
>>>> sentient, but also possesses Intellectus w/regards to all the anchor
>>>> points in
>>>> the network.
>>>>
>>>> The Doorways themselves aren't built so much as grown.
>>>
>>>
>>> Reminds me of the portal animation Rune posted a while ago.
>>>
>>> http://runevision.com/3d/anims/wormhole_portal.mpg
>>
>> BTW, bad news from scientists for fans of wormholes: According to modern
>> theories, wormholes are conceivable, but it seems their passageway would
>> continually extend in length, and happen to do so at -- well, guess what
>> -- the speed of light.
>>
>> So no wormhole-based FTL travel -- sorry folks.
>>
>
> But, what if, we create a sequence of wormhole, in the vicinity of a
> wormhole-platform.
> On May 2017, creation of first wormhole, aimed to alpha centaury
> (distance : 4 light-years)
> On July 2017, creation of another, same target
> and so on, every two months.
>
> In May 2021, travelers to alpha centaury took the first wormhole. Given
> that the sun-earth distance is about 8 minutes, they probably have about
> fifteen minutes to jump in and out. (or rather: twice 4 minutes, with a
> banned intermediate period of 12 minutes: too near the star)
I guess we have a misunderstanding here:
It is not the distance between the endpoints _in regular space_ that
increases at light speed (though I presume they can't move away fromm
each other faster than that).
It is the distance between the endpoints _along the wormhole passage_
that increases at light speed.
So if you create a wormhole in 2017 and send a ship through in 2021, the
_passage through the wormhole_ would take 4 years -- and then some,
thanks to its length increasing even more while you travel though it.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 6/8/2016 1:28 PM, clipka wrote:
> Am 07.06.2016 um 23:24 schrieb Stephen:
>> On 6/7/2016 10:04 PM, jr wrote:
>>> von Däniken
> ....
>> A snake oil salesman.
>
> Not really. He's not selling cure-alls, just curious stories.
>
That is the original meaning of the phrase, true.
> He's more like one of those televangelists. Maybe a tad less dangerous
> because he doesn't seem to bundle his tales with any moral code.
>
There are few more dangerous than televangelists.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Can we stop interjecting hard reality into flights of fancy?
10 Writing rules we wish more SF/F Authors would break:
http://io9.gizmodo.com/5879434/10-writing-rules-we-wish-more-science-fiction-and-fantasy-authors-would-break
Don't bury my imagination in theories.
Regards,
A.D.B.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 08.06.2016 um 19:16 schrieb Anthony D. Baye:
> Don't bury my imagination in theories.
I have no intention to. I'm throwing in this type of stuff because I
find it just as mind-bogglingly fascinating as all the fiction people
come up with.
I guess I like counterpoint.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 7-6-2016 9:29, Stephen wrote:
> A possible future topic for Tena Chep.
>
I propose to make this the theme for the next Challenge 1 in August. For
once, we are forewarned :-)
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 6/9/2016 7:46 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 7-6-2016 9:29, Stephen wrote:
>> A possible future topic for Tena Chep.
>>
>
> I propose to make this the theme for the next Challenge 1 in August. For
> once, we are forewarned :-)
>
I second that and look forward to A.D.B.'s entry :)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen <mca### [at] aol com> wrote:
> On 6/9/2016 7:46 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> > On 7-6-2016 9:29, Stephen wrote:
> >> A possible future topic for Tena Chep.
> >>
> >
> > I propose to make this the theme for the next Challenge 1 in August. For
> > once, we are forewarned :-)
> >
> I second that and look forward to A.D.B.'s entry :)
>
>
> --
>
> Regards
> Stephen
Don't get your hopes up. Compared to the people that enter those contests, I'm
a two-bit hack.
I have enough projects awaiting completion without starting a new one.
I was more interested in seeing what others could do with the idea.
One important thing to remember: Context is everything. Ideally, you shouldn't
have to explain which category your object falls into, and the main problem is
that your object supposedly rewrites the history of your context.
If you use a fictional context, then you have to give enough information that
viewers understand why the object is interesting. An Ozymandias can be easier
in this regard - Like a plank in a shipwreck, a dilapidated starship in a
medieval village needs little explanation.
Of course, to qualify, the starship might be buried in a mound like a viking
longship.
If you want to use a historical context -- or something from modern day depicted
as it might be seen thousands of years from now -- one idea might be the
Millennium Seed Vault. Or you might imagine a time capsule satellite returning
to earth.
It might not be suitable for a contest, for the simple reason that one might
have to do a series of images to elaborate on the context, before dropping the
other shoe and showing the artefact.
It would definitely be a challenge. But I doubt that I am up to it, personally.
Sorry to disappoint.
Regards,
A.D.B.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 6/9/2016 5:30 PM, Anthony D. Baye wrote:
> Don't get your hopes up.
Couldn't get any higher, old chap.
> Compared to the people that enter those contests, I'm
> a two-bit hack.
>
Have you seen any of mine?
> I have enough projects awaiting completion without starting a new one.
>
> I was more interested in seeing what others could do with the idea.
>
That is just selfish, IMO.
>
> One important thing to remember: Context is everything. Ideally, you shouldn't
> have to explain which category your object falls into, and the main problem is
> that your object supposedly rewrites the history of your context.
>
> If you use a fictional context, then you have to give enough information that
> viewers understand why the object is interesting. An Ozymandias can be easier
> in this regard - Like a plank in a shipwreck, a dilapidated starship in a
> medieval village needs little explanation.
>
> Of course, to qualify, the starship might be buried in a mound like a viking
> longship.
>
> If you want to use a historical context -- or something from modern day depicted
> as it might be seen thousands of years from now -- one idea might be the
> Millennium Seed Vault. Or you might imagine a time capsule satellite returning
> to earth.
>
You are setting the standards quite high.
I look forward to seeing your entry.
> It might not be suitable for a contest, for the simple reason that one might
> have to do a series of images to elaborate on the context, before dropping the
> other shoe and showing the artefact.
>
Multiple entries are allowed.
> It would definitely be a challenge.
The name of the game.
> But I doubt that I am up to it, personally.
> Sorry to disappoint.
>
Shucks! blush! :-P
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 6/9/2016 7:04 PM, Stephen wrote:
> On 6/9/2016 5:30 PM, Anthony D. Baye wrote:
BTW
No pressure.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 9-6-2016 20:05, Stephen wrote:
> On 6/9/2016 7:04 PM, Stephen wrote:
>> On 6/9/2016 5:30 PM, Anthony D. Baye wrote:
>
>
> BTW
> No pressure.
>
>
Of course! None at all indeed.
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
