From: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv
Subject: Re: DS9 was very BAD
Date: 10 Jan 93 18:21:04 GMT
Article-I.D.: wam.1993Jan10.182104.27788
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park

In article <93010.115206MRM122@psuvm.psu.edu> MRM122@psuvm.psu.edu writes:
>Many people are saying that the "non-linear time" thing was a foolish idea-
>that it conflicted with physics as we know it.  They say things like "WHy don't
> the writers talk to some physics students!"  

	That's right.  Even a high school chemistry student could tell them
	that most of the technical terms they're throwing around are
	being used incorrectly, or are just plain made up.  

	There is NO NEED for them to do so.  Why make things up when you
	can dig out something real and use it instead?  Why?  Because the 
	writers are obviously woefully ignorant and are too arrogant to 
	be bothered with little things that might make their already
	dumb plots even dumber.  For instance, take the episode of TNG 
	where they had a society of clones who were undergoing something called
	"replicative fading".  It takes maybe 6 seconds of thought to figure
	out that the whole idea of "replicative fading" is absurd.  In short,
	why would you clone the clones, when you have the original genes
	available (and don't tell me some nonsense about having "used it
	up"-we can nearly fashion DNA from scratch today--if they were
	as advanced as they are, they'd have computer records as to the
	content of the original DNA (or within one or two generations) and
	just duplicate from there--no copies of a copy nonsense).  


>To that, I have this to say: We
>as of this point in our history are FAR from understanding all that there is to
>understand.  


	True, but we understand pretty damn well what elements there are, 
	yet ST writers almost impulsively come up with new elements 
	(elements that are supposed to be, no less, stable, non-radioactive
	elements--which means they come in on the low end of periodic table,
	and we've *filled that up already*).  

	We also understand laws of motion.  For instance, I'm willing to
	give them warp speed and such, because without it the series would
	be dull and boring.  But they also propose that they have some
	sort of inertial dampening system.  This would make one hell of
	a defensive weapon--to be specific, it would be pretty simple to
	take something that can create artificial gravity and selectively
	eliminate interia and turn it into a projectile-proof defensive shield.
	(Phaser proof, too--in fact, proof to *ANY* particle/mass weapon).  
	They don't so this because it would be boring, but it's still inconsistent.
	Then we have transporters, which I also forgive them for, because they
	make the show interesting.  

	So I'm not complaining that they sort of bend the rules of physics,
	I'm complaining that they constantly violate the ones they pretend
	to obey, and make a travesty of buzzwords that they *clearly* do not
	understand the meaning of. 

	At the very least, what the hell is the point of a streamlined
	(not even *properly* streamlined, at that) spaceship that cruises
	around like some sort of airplane?  


>Saying such a thing is "impossible" is silly, since as far as we
>know, breaking the light barrier is impossible, making all these shows
>completely pointless, true?  


	There are things, as I said above, that I'm perfectly willing to
	forgive (even though it's not entirely necessary--the Man vs. 
	Kzin wars books [Larry Niven?] did a pretty good job of an interstellar
	war w/o cheating the light barrier for awhile).  Things I am not willing
	to forgive are internal inconsistencies.  Take the clone example
	above.  Here they are implying that these people have this super 
	high technology, yet are too stupid to figure out that they should
	just replicate from the original genes--or furthermore, use some
	formof genetic engineering.  You can find this kind of stupid 
	inconsistency in almost every episode of TNG.  It happens because
	these writers don't seem to care one whit whether their plot lines
	are solid--or even moderately thought out.


>And, may I point out that you all have as
>difficult of a time understanding a non-linear perspective as the aliens did
>in understanding a linear perspective.  


	This is stupid.  The whole idea of *life* in a non-linear time
	sense is absurd.  The reasons why are so numerous that only a total
	numbskull accepts the idea as anything more than a fanciful chance
	for some writer to take a poke or two at his/her shallow philosophy
	of human nature.


>Who are you to say how "time" must be
>perceived by all creatures, even non-corporeal creatures living in the
>completely alternate environment of a wormhole.  You can't comprehend it- thus
>you declare it impossible.  

	I comprehend it quite well, and I have considered the IMPLICATIONS
	of what they are getting at.  Obviously, you and they do not understand
	this.

	There are two possible ways to look at something that might exist
	in nonlinear time.  The first is the simple one--i.e., everything
	is in a single fixed state.  The world of a nonlinear environment of
	this sort is equivalent to a single frame of a motion picture 
	(perhaps a black frame might be more apt, since light, gravity, etc.
	only apply if you have time).  In other words, from a vantage
	point INSIDE the frame, no form of cognition whatsoever--in fact,m
	no kind of interaction, even between dumb matter, can occur.  

	The other possibility relies on what most of modern physics has to 
	say about time.  In this case, non-linear time covers everything from
	the birth to the end of the universe--ALL AT ONCE.  (There was no 
	"time" before the big bang, so don't try that one).  In this case,
	interaction, information, cause-effect--are all completely ruled out.

	The whole idea is preposterous.  I don't mindwhen they break the 
	rules that they need to to make the show interesting.  I don't 
	terribly mind when they break rules that are probably pretty 	
	solid (no backwards time travel) when it makes for a fun plot, 
	but I certainly mind when they break as many as they want and then
	propose some inconsistent new laws to replace them.


	
>Much like the people who wanted to burn Gallileo
>for saying the earth goes around the sun, not the other way around.  Very
>interesting...


	Paralleling Gallileo (who actually studied his subject) to 
	the hack writers who write for ST (who, likely, have never 
	studied any more science than you get in your typical comic book) 
	is pretty pathetic.  These people aren't visionaries, they're
	deluded egomaniacs who can't be bothered with checking their work.

-- 
      Blaming "society" for your problems is like blaming clouds for rain.
 ---  boycott == coercion == censorship == closed mindedness == cowardice  ---
	      "Psalms 23:1  The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want."  
		Shepherds are for sheep.   -----      Pain teaches.