 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
m_a_r_c <jac### [at] wanadoo fr> wrote:
> What makes me more trouble is seeing spacecrafts flying like aircrafts!
This could actually be explained with some (rather imaginary) technology:
Spacecraft (at least in most scifi movies and series) are subject to
enormous accelerations, so they need what is usually called "inertial
dampeners" to stop the people inside from being squashed onto walls,
floors and ceilings.
Likewise spacecraft in scifi movies need artificial gravity, because
operating the ship is most convenient for humans in normal gravity (and
exposing humans to zero gravity for long periods of time has negative
side-effects).
It may be that due to these two factors that if a spaceship needs to perform
a tight turn in high velocity, the best way to do it from the point of view
of the inertial dampeners is to do it like an aircraft would do it in an
atmosphere. Perhaps this minimizes the amount of energy required for the
inertial dampeners (and the artificial gravity), energy which is better
used for shields and suchs.
It may also be the most natural way for the pilot to operate the ship,
so even if the ship would be able to perform maneuvers which would be
impossible in atmospherical conditions, those are only reserved for when
they are truely needed, and the default is to fly the ship in the way which
is most natural for the pilot.
Of course this doesn't excuse those movies/tv-series where a ship
stops to complete halt if it runs out of fuel...
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Everybody knows that there's no sound in space, and everybody knows that
> the vast majority of scifi movies get this wrong and present sounds audible
> in space, which is physically impossible, and thus an inaccuracy.
Reminds me of a certain commentary regarding Star Trek:
"When the Enterprise is struck by some sort of weapon, you often see
people like Sulu, etc. falling out of their chairs. One would think the
designers of the Enterprise would had heard of seat belts..."
--
It is kisstomary to cuss the bride.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Everybody knows that there's no sound in space, and everybody knows that
> the vast majority of scifi movies get this wrong and present sounds audible
> in space, which is physically impossible, and thus an inaccuracy.
Has anyone placed a microphone in space, blown something up nearby, and
recorded the results?
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Motors, electric devices, etc. all produce heat, and it's very difficult
> to get rid of it. Putting a big thermal sink on the outer hull of the
> ship is a poor way of getting rid of the heat because it radiates the
> heat away very slowly in vacuum.
Yep. That's why the moon landers were covered with gold foil (nice
reflector) and the moon suits were white. To reflect as much as possible
the incoming radiation because it's difficult to get rid of.
On a different track, perhaps the computers on the ship see the lasers
and ships, and make fake laser sounds and ship swooshes, in order that
the pilots can have an instinctive understanding of what's going on
around them without having to turn around. (Not unlike a HUD tracking
your eyes to make it easier to activate controls in a fighter jet.)
Of course, that still falls down when you're out in space hearing the
swooshes instead of in the pilot's cockpit.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Helpful housekeeping hints:
Check your feather pillows for holes
before putting them in the washing machine.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
>> Sounds like a bunch of rationalizations to me.
>
> So?
>
> What you do you suggest? Explaining the custom with irrational arguments?
Technically, "rationalization" is irrational.
http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/09/rationalization.html
:-) I just thought that was an interesting post. Indeed, the whole site
is pretty interesting.
> Thus you expect there to be a camera, even though in the fictional
> world depicted in the movie there is no camera.
I was always amused when there are lens-flair effects on things like CG
movies where you're supposedly looking out the eyes of a character.
> If the movie aknowledges the existence of the camera, it breaks the
> fourth wall.
Yeah, like lens flairs do for me. :-)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Helpful housekeeping hints:
Check your feather pillows for holes
before putting them in the washing machine.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 23 Jun 2008 17:50:58 -0400, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> Everybody knows that there's no sound in space, and everybody knows that
>the vast majority of scifi movies get this wrong and present sounds audible
>in space, which is physically impossible, and thus an inaccuracy.
[snip]
Has no one heard of the phrase "The suspension of disbelief"?
It's a film and the people in it are actors.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
>> Sounds like a bunch of rationalizations to me.
>
> So?
>
> What you do you suggest? Explaining the custom with irrational arguments?
> How would that make any sense?
Colloquially, the act of rationalizing something is the act of finding
reasons to support something you know is wrong. In other words, this
sounds to me like they're just trying to find any excuse they can not to
change their ways.
>> I don't know about anyone else, but when I watch a sci-fi movie and the
>> camera is in space, I expect to hear whatever you would hear in space...
>
> Thus you expect there to be a camera, even though in the fictional
> world depicted in the movie there is no camera.
Not necessarily. When watching a really good movie, I feel like "I am
there." It's a strange split; I experience the Point of View (gotta be
careful writing POV in these forums!), yet without the concerns of
actually being there such as danger from suffocation (or errant enemy
fire!). As long as I can imagine that I see and hear things from the
point in space where the camera sits, I can forget about the camera and
merrily enjoy the illusion. This is, after all, what Suspension of
Disbelief is all about.
Of course I know it's not real, and all that, but I can trick myself
into believing it for a while. Anything "wrong" (such as badly
tesselated geometry, poor artificial lighting, a microphone boom
slipping into the picture or, in this case, sound effects in a vacuum)
detracts from my ability to fool myself.
>> ie, nothing. The fact that there are added sound effects breaks the
>> fourth wall by reminding me that someone added those effects just to
>> make it sound cool.
>
> That exact same argument could be used for *any* added sound effect
> in *any* movie. Which would make 99.999% of movies flawed.
Two things:
1) Not necessarily. It depends on whether or not those sound effects
draw attention to themselves. In this vein, the best movie score is one
which you don't notice. Sound effects in a vacuum get noticed partly
because many people know there's no sound in a vacuum, and partly
because there has been such a big fuss made about it.
2) 90% of everything is crap anyway (this principle has a name, but I do
not remember it. I'll google it later). Not your 99.999%, but still
pretty close :)
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> 2) 90% of everything is crap anyway
"And nowadays, there's 100 times as much stuff out there. Unfortunately,
nowadays 99.99% of everything is crap."
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Helpful housekeeping hints:
Check your feather pillows for holes
before putting them in the washing machine.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Has anyone placed a microphone in space, blown something up nearby, and
> recorded the results?
I think if you were near enough to a big explosion the microphone would
surely pick up some signal, because all the gas created by the explosion
would create some increase in pressure momentarily. The question is, how
far away from a "normal" sized explosion would the changes in pressure be
detectable?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Tue, 24 Jun 2008 21:13:05 +0100, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom>
did spake, saying:
> On a different track, perhaps the computers on the ship see the lasers
> and ships, and make fake laser sounds and ship swooshes, in order that
> the pilots can have an instinctive understanding of what's going on
> around them without having to turn around. (Not unlike a HUD tracking
> your eyes to make it easier to activate controls in a fighter jet.)
Wasn't that how they rationalised it in Star Trek for the explosions?
Hey that could be it though, the ship keeps track of every ship in range
and when it spots one firing applies a sound to let you know; that would
explain why enemy ships can sound different to allied ships. Oh sure some
might say if that's the case it should be linked to navigation so it can
move out of the way of any incoming shots, but where's the fun in that?
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
