Stargate: 1999 (Will Universe be like Space:1999?)

[Lady Vaako]

Tinkerbell: Sounds like some one needs some Suspension of Disbelief pixie dust!

LOL! Good one!

[Professor D.H.D. Puddlejumper]

How about they weren't ignorant of the fact but they rather simply chose to ignore it?

It's possible but I'm inclined to doubt it. If, however, they did choose to ignore it, then to me that would demonstrate a distinct lack of respect by the producers for their potential viewers.

[Lady Vaako]

It's possible but I'm inclined to doubt it. If, however, they did choose to ignore it, then to me that would demonstrate a distinct lack of respect by the producers for their potential viewers.

Agreed... But what about the fact that it is impossible to travel faster than the speed of light? Isn't that one of the basic laws of physics? And yet it's been ignored repeatedly in science-fiction stories for decades. Does that mean that all scifi authors, writers, producers have been and still are to this day showing a lack of respect for their potential audience?

So because of this, I'm thinking that if one day someone can find a way to travel faster than the speed of light, someone could also potentially find a way to bump the Moon out of its own orbit.

[1 Lt. Kei "Edge" Nagase]

ok, this is scarry...I actually remember watching Space:1999 when it originally was released. I even still have a die-cast Eagle transporter. Honestly, I can't remember any sci-fi show or movie (except maybe 2001, 2010) that had realistic physics. One thing to note, however, is that according to some papers I have read, warp drive is, in fact, a workable theory. I know everyone will start quoting Einstein's relativity formula, but some recent experiments also indicate that light does not always travel at a constant speed...so maybe someone can do something with that someday..

[HAL2100]

I was reading the FTL article on wikipedia.org and it mentioned that its actually more of a dimensional drive whereby the ship doesn't technically travel faster than light.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FTL_(Battlestar_Galactica)

If I were to ever create a space opera (which would be World War II in space BTW), I'd go with the dimensional drive concept to keep it nice and simple as well as pushing out the envelope since EVERYONE does faster than light travel nowadays. (Disney changed 'Mission to the Moon' to 'Misson to Mars' after the first lunar landing to make it seem more fantastic.)

[knowles2]

Interesting show ....know anywhere where they sell the seasons?

Agreed... But what about the fact that it is impossible to travel faster than the speed of light? Isn't that one of the basic laws of physics? And yet it's been ignored repeatedly in science-fiction stories for decades. Does that mean that all scifi authors, writers, producers have been and still are to this day showing a lack of respect for their potential audience?

No you simply have to come up with something to work around what Einstein's said nothing could travel faster than light, he said nothing about space it being warp faster than speed of light and the ship being inside the warp space would get drag along, a warp drive, he also said that space be streachy, so why not bring to points in space together, make is a smaller gap between the two aka space fold drive, worm holes , he also did not say anything about speed of light being far greater speed in a other dimension, Hyperdrive.

just like every other law/rule they can be bent.

But how a moon with no engines can travel to other star systems, in near days, I aint got a clue.

[Aewon]

Agreed... But what about the fact that it is impossible to travel faster than the speed of light?

A theory that's going to be tossed out the window in a few hundred years...

[HAL2100]

Its all about suspension of disbelief. You just accept it as it. There's not a story out there that doesn't require it to some degree (however slight). If you've ever seen the stage production of Les Mis' - its a minimalist set moreso than other productions. Harispray was (::sniff: the same way. Yes, you're limited with what you can do on a stage, but we're talking next to nuthing on the stage.

Somethings just have to be taken at face value. Granted, it makes life easier if there's a certain plausibility. But not neccessary. In the end SofD is critical to any story.

[Professor D.H.D. Puddlejumper]

Agreed... But what about the fact that it is impossible to travel faster than the speed of light? Isn't that one of the basic laws of physics? And yet it's been ignored repeatedly in science-fiction stories for decades. Does that mean that all scifi authors, writers, producers have been and still are to this day showing a lack of respect for their potential audience?

As I understand it, the "impossibility" of FTL is not a basic law of physics as such. Rather it comes from Einstein's theory of relativity which maintains that the speed of light cannot be exceeded. That doesn't mean it's impossible, but it's certainly beyond our space-traveling capabilities at present. Nevertheless there are numerous theories out there on the possibilities of FTL, that try to work around Einstein's theory, some merely speculative, some well-grounded. When a good sci-fi writer/producer includes FTL in a story or series, he/she generally draws from some theory as to its possiblity, showing his/her understanding and appreciation of interstellar distances and also of the of the difficulties involved in making such journeys. In doing so, I'd say they're actually showing respect for the reader/viewer. Even Star Wars gave us the famous "jump to light speed."
And there's an ongoing thread in the Science & Tech section discussing this very subject.
http://forum.gateworld.net/showthread.php?t=26628

It also goes to what defines Science Fiction. Now I realize there are a few thousand definitions out there and everyone has their favorite. Wikipedia defines it, in part, as "a broad genre of fiction that often involves speculations based on current or future science or technology. (Note the extra emphasis on "future science.") Another definition I like is one made in 1926 by Hugo Gernsback who, excerpted here, defines the sci-fi story as "a charming romance intermingled with scientific fact and prophetic vision . . . [they] make tremendously interesting reading -- they are always instructive. They supply knowledge in a very palatable form . . . ."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definit...cience_fiction

Space 1999, or at least its premise (I can't single out any individual scripts from memory) does not for me, meet the criteria found in these definitions.

So because of this, I'm thinking that if one day someone can find a way to travel faster than the speed of light, someone could also potentially find a way to bump the Moon out of its own orbit.

If someone does find a way to bump the moon out of orbit, or a theory at least, it'll make for a good new sci-fi story, but it won't likely validate Space 1999's nuclear-waste blast theory.

Now I won't try to kid myself, or you, or anyone else here. Obviously some suspension of disbelief is required in much sci-fi, including Stargate, some episodes more than others. For each of us, it's a matter of where we draw the line. Space 1999 is too far on the wrong side of that line for me.

All the best.