Language:
switch to room list switch to menu My folders
Go to page: First ... 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 ... Last
[#] Sun Jan 26 2003 18:46:38 EST from Peter Pulse @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Yea, for whatever amount of fuel the ship is carrying, they also need to be carrying an equal amount of oxidizer to burn the fuel.. if we're talking about conventional combustion.

[#] Sun Jan 26 2003 19:01:22 EST from Mr.T @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Yeah, we're talking about conventional combustion. Smartass.

[#] Sun Jan 26 2003 19:48:34 EST from Peter Pulse @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

I'm just saying, you don't need to count on the air in the interior of the ship, since you're likely to be carrying around a huge amount of liquid oxygen or whatever.

[#] Sun Jan 26 2003 20:07:19 EST from Mr.T @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

That's a fair point, though it looked more like a sta or station type thing.

[#] Sun Jan 26 2003 21:11:47 EST from ming the merciless @ KAOS

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Sorry Piouhgd, rereading your message I see it can be taken two ways.
And I took it the wrong way. :-(

[#] Sun Jan 26 2003 21:17:17 EST from ming the merciless @ KAOS

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

I always wanted to see a Martha Stewart MacGuyver episode. Why I bet between the two of them, with a magnesium bicycle frame, some duct tape, a fish tank air pump, some pot pourii and a little decotage (apologies on my spelling tonight) they could have a functioning moon colony in no time -- and a Turkey dinner.

[#] Mon Jan 27 2003 07:11:55 EST from Zlicl @ KAOS

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Fire in space? I thought we were talking about a TV SHOW, not a documentary.
Who cares how long it would burn, if at all. It's dramatic. Isn't that why we watch. Hell, if a we wanted accuracy none of us would have tolerated any version of Star Trek for more than 5 minutes.
Geez. This is why Sci-Fi conventions are lampooned so often.

[#] Mon Jan 27 2003 08:41:04 EST from Ford II @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Pigs On Fire In Spaaaaaaaaaace...

[#] Mon Jan 27 2003 08:42:09 EST from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

MMmmmmm... extra-terrestrial BBQ pit!

[#] Mon Jan 27 2003 10:14:11 EST from Mr.T @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Zlicl: I'm a geek and I don't apologize for it.

[#] Mon Jan 27 2003 18:31:04 EST from Magus @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Zlicl, some people who know how combustion works find that those big explosions in space reduce the verisimilitude of a movie, which impairs our suspension of disbelief.

Also, some people who are interested in how the world works find a discussion of whether and to what extent that sort of thing might happen to be interesting.
If others want to laugh at me for my intellectual curiosity, that's their choice.

[#] Mon Jan 27 2003 21:17:06 EST from ming the merciless @ KAOS

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Never mind Zlicl, he's had a case of chronic Grinchism for as long as I've known him. It's just his special way of saying "I love you." Although, now that I think of it, no one ever did answer our plaintive queries about egg in a cup...

[#] Tue Jan 28 2003 17:42:34 EST from Zlicl @ KAOS

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Suspension of disbelief requires one to relinquish control and experience the film as an observer - a passive observer, that is. If something like innacuracies in combustion (as far as you understand them) get in your way of watching a film in such a way, then either your consciousness is pushed way to the front or your sphincter is wound too tightly. No matter which, not being able to overlook innacuracies whilst performing a critique says more about the critic than the film. EVERY film is riddled with innacuracies. They're necessary evils. I won't blame you for harping on continuity or editing flaws, though.
Now, about the egg cup. What's up with THAT? Sugar? Egg yolk? Blech!

[#] Tue Jan 28 2003 21:08:57 EST from fleeb @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]


But then there's Ed Wood's approach to 'suspension of disbelief'...

[#] Tue Jan 28 2003 21:34:31 EST from girthta @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

YEAH!!!

[#] Wed Jan 29 2003 08:26:52 EST from Mr.T @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

zlicl: If you were watching a movie, say, a ramantic comedy, and one of the
characters seddenly started floating away as though gravity didn't apply,
you'd probably notice it. This is no different.

Forthermore, if you have a problem with geeks, you might want to stay out
of the Science Fiction room.

[#] Wed Jan 29 2003 09:03:42 EST from fleeb @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]


Heh... 'ramantic comedy'... I like that misspelling. Sort of suggestive of a rape scene that's somehow funny.

[#] Wed Jan 29 2003 07:51:50 EST from Gary Green @ KAOS

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

I prefer to disbelieve suspension.

Which is why I've never been to San Francisco.

[#] Wed Jan 29 2003 10:29:47 EST from Ford II @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Actually, it works. I saw it myself.
What I disbelieve are those hills and the trolley cars.

[#] Wed Jan 29 2003 10:41:25 EST from Ally @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

I don't mind suspending disbelief--I liked The Game! But, after watching Firefly's silent space scenes, I really don't wanna hear and see a big-ass explosion anymore.

Go to page: First ... 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 ... Last