Re: Smith and Jones science (Was: Doctor Who progressive or interlaced?)
- From: "Astrobiochemist" <CCSBeyond@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 5 Apr 2007 12:48:58 -0700
Actually, the most power magnetic fields created on earth, within an
order of magnitude of the field strength mentioned in the episode, are
extremely destructive. Such magnets are basically one shot devices
which has to be rebuilt to be used again. So, the MRI should destroy
itself when it creates the field.
But why is the MRI able to survive long enough to build up to 50
kiloTeslas before destroying itself? Well, the plasmavore does say
The 50 kT has to be the filed measured at every point on the Earths surface
in order to fry peoples brains out. How does she intend to create a field on
the moon and project it to the Earth, every point of the Earth at that level
with an MRI scanner which only produces magnetic fileds internally and with
a very limited range. If the MRI scanner blows up instantly that's the end
of any notion of scanning the filed across the Earth, like with a video
recorder (which produces a strong magnetic field but with little range so
has to be in almost direct contact with the tape to record), and in any case
where is the power going to come from and how is she projecting this filed
to the Earth?
She's creating the large field through the act of blowing up her
transducer (in her case, an MRI) which is how extremely powerful
magnetic fields are created on Earth. She will need to use an
extremely powerful energy source to do this but the Doctor can see the
early effects of her modifications to the MRI so she obviously has
one.
that she has modified it. She could be using very small forcefields
to keep the MRI from ripping itself apart long enough to get to 50
kTs.
Oh right, so she is now using force fields. And how are these force fields
being produced and by what?
By her alien devices. She says she has modified the MRI so we know
she has some method of doing so and as an alien, she can have alien
devices with her. If you want the show to be more specific than that,
then then show will have to start explaing things like how
regeneration works, or the TARDIS forcefield works or how the TARDSI
travels in time in great detail and no one expects them to do that.
But in so far as the story goes, how she makes the MRI create such a
powerful field is not as important as the fact that she does and the
Yes it is. This is a science fiction show and has to be believably
explained.
She explains it well enough for the show, a series aimed at more than
just the niche of science fiction nerds but a general audience at
large.
Doctor has to stop it, which also is not dependent on how she keeps
the MRI in one piece or where gets the power to keep it running.
Most modern science fiction writers will agree that it's not
mentioning what device powers the magnetic field that would make the
show science fiction,
Yes is bloody well is.
it's using an atmosphere (in the metaphorical,
not the literal sense) of science (in this case, aliens, being
transported on the moon) that makes the show science fiction.
CARP!
So, you say you know more about writing good science fiction than Rod
Serling, Theodore Sturgeon, Barry N. Malzberg, James Blish,
Christopher Evans, Robert Scholes, Edmund Crispin, John W. Campbell
and Robert A. Heinlein. Well, then you should publish your fantastic
science fiction story so you can show everybody how to do it right.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Re: Smith and Jones science (Was: Doctor Who progressive or interlaced?)
- From: Astrobiochemist
- Re: Smith and Jones science (Was: Doctor Who progressive or interlaced?)
- From: Agamemnon
- Re: Smith and Jones science (Was: Doctor Who progressive or interlaced?)
- From: solar penguin
- Re: Smith and Jones science (Was: Doctor Who progressive or interlaced?)
- From: Agamemnon
- Re: Smith and Jones science (Was: Doctor Who progressive or interlaced?)
- From: Astrobiochemist
- Re: Smith and Jones science (Was: Doctor Who progressive or interlaced?)
- From: Agamemnon
- Re: Smith and Jones science (Was: Doctor Who progressive or interlaced?)
- From: solar penguin
- Re: Smith and Jones science (Was: Doctor Who progressive or interlaced?)
- From: Agamemnon
- Re: Smith and Jones science (Was: Doctor Who progressive or interlaced?)
- From: Astrobiochemist
- Re: Smith and Jones science (Was: Doctor Who progressive or interlaced?)
- From: Agamemnon
- Re: Smith and Jones science (Was: Doctor Who progressive or interlaced?)
- Prev by Date: Re: Smith and Jones science (Was: Doctor Who progressive or interlaced?)
- Next by Date: DVD set disappointment
- Previous by thread: Re: Smith and Jones science (Was: Doctor Who progressive or interlaced?)
- Next by thread: Re: Smith and Jones science (Was: Doctor Who progressive or interlaced?)
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading