I've been following the B5 Wars thread with some amusement, and one assertion
keeps cropping up again and again, from almost all parties that leaves me not
a little baffled.
The assertion is that a B5 game needs some sort of Newtonian mechanics because
this is a major part of the show's appeal.
Have I missed something? I like B5, indeed a few weeks ago I sat down and
watched years 2 and 3. It never occurred to me that I found appeal in it's
display of Newton's Laws. Am I weird?
Indeed I'm hard pressed to recall any particular examples of it's display. I
recall Star Furies (and perhaps the White Star) rotating 180 degrees to brake
or return fire... and that's it. I don't recall any starships powersliding
sideways or the like.
Ships, IIRC, move like... ships. Slowly and in the direction they face.
Fighters zip around them like aeroplanes. Shadow ships seemed to stop dead
when attacked by telepaths in flat contravention of Newton's laws. Am I
mistaken? I don't even recall anything resembling a tactical maneouver, just
material, heroism and the occaisional new weapon.
So if the only tip of the hat to Sir Isaac is the occaisional 180 then perhaps
B5 Wars is getting it right? I note a 180 degree turn would be easy enough to
bodge onto FT if that's all the chrome it took to do B5 movement justice. I've
seen it on the list that people allow a 180 flip along a ship's axis to swap
port and starboard bearing weapons, and this is just the same thing on a
different axis. Negative speed in FT isn't a problem.
I like Sir Isaac as much as the next man. A few years ago was his
350th birthday and I had a slap-up dinner to celebrate the day. I
Imagine many of you feasted heartily as well that day. I don't, however, rate
his influence over B5 as much more that a little chrome on top of the usual TV
tales of heroic liberalism.
So where is it written that the Newtonian thing is a big part of B5's appeal?
Is this just something zealous fanboys assert when recompiling their list of
ten reasons why B5 is impirically superior to Star Trek? I've heard plenty of
people rave about B5, the stories, the CGI etc. but never about the underlying
physical principles. Why are people asserting that only a suitably Newtonian
system will do justice to B5?
Baffled am I,
> On Tue, Mar 18, 1997 at 10:15:58 PM, David Brewer wrote:
[much snipped for brevity's sake]
> So where is it written that the Newtonian thing is a big part of B5's
> their list of ten reasons why B5 is impirically superior to Star Trek?
> I've heard plenty of people rave about B5, the stories, the CGI etc.
but
> never about the underlying physical principles. Why are people
I understand your point, and agree that in B5 Newtonian laws of motion are
observed mostly in the breach. I stand by my earlier assertion that Newtonian
mechanics are important to the spririt of a B5 game, though, for the following
reason:
1) JMS has stated that scientific accuracy is a goal.
While oftentimes the perceived demands of television conflict with the demands
of physics, scientific accuracy has been stated as a goal and appears to be
observed more than most (if not all) other science fiction TV shows and
movies. The mere fact that the moving force behind the show says that
scientific accuracy is an aim. I think, imparts a similar burden on anyone
designing a game based on the show.
[Yes, I know that "Star Trek" occasionally makes similar claims, but by
that I think they mean "we added a Heisenberg Uncertainty Compensator to the
transporter schematic."]
2) There is nothing in the background to think it is non-Newtonian.
Earth Alliance ships, and the B5 station itself, do not have any sort of
artifical gravity, subspace fields, warp drive, or any other doubletalk.
Ships and B5 itself have large rotating sections to provide gravity-like
conditions. C&C is supposedly in 1/3rd gravity (although how I don't
know,
since it doesn't appear to rotate <grin>). All-in-all, B5 is remarkably
clear of the pseudoscientific doubletalk which passes for science in much
science fiction. [Lest anyone misunderstand, I don't have problems with
doubletalk per se, I just think that most SF handles it poorly, especially on
TV:
Writers get to the point where _anything_ can be justified by stringing
enough polysylabic words together.]
3) Ships perform maneuvers Newtonian-like maneuvers.
The Earthforce Starfuries are the best example of this. With their long arms
and multiple thrusters, these are ships that are designed with Netwonian
movement in mind. Also, on at least one occasion I can think of, we have seen
them accelerate to a given velocity and then coast, and then delecrate by
turning around. I think I also remember seeing Starfuries fire while coasting
sideways in one of the first season episodes.
There are clearly many examples of non-Newtonian movement in the show;
in fact, I don't doubt that the majority of the times we see ships move, it's
probably not explainable in strict (or even loose) Newtonian terms. I would
chalk these up to the needs and limitations of television. Some compromises
must be made, but I think in B5 game terms, they should be limited to such
playability constraints as a two-dimensional surface and pretending that
the thrust occurs in one impulse.
> At 03:15 AM 3/19/97 GMT, David Brewer wrote:
> The assertion is that a B5 game needs some sort of Newtonian
Actually there are many cases where Newtonian Mechanics are followed in B5,
particularly in fighter to fighter engagements... Watching a Star Furie in
action against raiders, capital ships and B5 itself showed the use of
netwonian mechanics and many slide by firings. When the Star Furies engaged
the Centari Cruiser, they set their momentum, fired as they aproached and
turned to face the enemy and racked her sides as their momentum carried them
across and then followed up by firing in the opposite direction of travel...
This is but one scene where this occured. Mojo was quite embarassed when I
pointed out to him that the opening sequence for one season where two Star
Furies are fighting each other violated the momentum rules. He obviously
wanted the show to followed Newtonian mechanics as did JMS. However, when it
helps the story along (I.E. Shadows) they use dramatic license to make a point
of how telepaths affect shadows. It would be very difficult to make this point
if the Shadows simply drifted... Cost time and CGI work... Phil P.
[minor spoilers for first half of season 4; I will attempt to be vague
in the references so those who haven't seen won't know exactly what I'm
talking about...]
> 1) JMS has stated that scientific accuracy is a goal.
Anyone nail jms yet for a glitch he made in a recent ep where a freighter
is under thrust yet has cargo floating about the cargo hold?? ;-)
> 2) There is nothing in the background to think it is non-Newtonian.
Well, that depends on the ep. Some eps you can see the stars rotating in the
background, other eps you don't. There was a *big* discussion on the rastb5
newsgroup a couple years back (in late season 1/early season 2)
complaining about the lack of stars moving through the CnC windows; it
basically came down to physical limitations and their budget; they could do
it, but it would have blown their budget away. I don't remember the specifics
of the discussion, only that said discussion was held and people came up with
all kinds of ways for jms to explain why the stars didn't move in CnC (though
some of them were kinda ludicrous).
> All-in-all, B5 is remarkably clear
> Writers get to the point where _anything_ can be justified by stringing
At which point I toss it into the category of Science Fantasy, and not Science
Fiction. :-)
> 3) Ships perform maneuvers Newtonian-like maneuvers.
Yeah, there've been quite a few eps where these things have happened. One good
example of the 'Furies accelerating, then spinning to slow down would be in
season 1's "Signs & Portents", when Ivanova's fighter wing went off to
intercept some Raiders that were supposedly attacking a freighter. She had 2
of her squadron stay by the jumpgate to watch for fleeing Raiders. At this
point two 'Furies stopped accelerating, spun, then began decel procedures.
The drifting by and firing in season 1 I think was in part 2 of "A Voice In
The Wilderness".
Mk
> At 11:16 19/03/97 -0500, you wrote:
---chop chop----
> Earth Alliance ships, and the B5 station itself, do not have any sort
Any large mass has a gravitational pull; since this is observable when a small
pleasure boat comes within a few metres of a super tanker at bearth and is
pulled towards the hull (both ships stationary)
It is totally fesible that the 1/3 g of C&C is due to the MASS of B5 as
a whole on the outlying section that does not rotate.
Jon (top cat)
> [quoted text omitted]
SDL
> >
C&C does rotate !!! It sits just above/below the docking bay which also
rotates. The reason you sometimes don't see the stars outside turning is
cost (see JMS post archive), but it does rotate. The 1/3 is due to it
being closer to the cental axis of spin that the majority of the station...
-Michael h
> sprayform.dev@netwales.co.uk writes:
@:) Any large mass has a gravitational pull; since this is observable @:) when
a small pleasure boat comes within a few metres of a super @:) tanker at
bearth and is pulled towards the hull (both ships
@:) stationary) It is totally fesible that the 1/3 g of C&C is due to
@:) the MASS of B5 as a whole on the outlying section that does not
@:) rotate.
Having just spent some time reading the Urban Legends home page
(www.urbanlegends.com) I am in a skeptical mood. This sounds pretty
implausible. My understanding was that the gravitational fields of
objects smaller than large mountains were impossible to measure - the
tanker experiment would appear to supply an excellent measurement technique.
Anybody have any supporting facts on this issue?
As for Babylon 5 and newtonian motion, we've heard again and again about how
amazing the starfuries are but does anyone have a concrete
example of a non-starfury moving in a newtonian fashion? I really
can't recall anything of the sort. I think there was a vague reference
mentioned already; perhaps the author could elaborate and clarify.
As far as I can tell, starfuries move in a newtonian fashion when it's
required to make them look cool. No other ships (maybe occaisionally the White
Star [answered my own question!]) exhibit this behavior. The basic attitude
seems to be "big ships are too slow to move according to the laws of physics".
> ---chop chop----
Correction: *all* objects with any mass have a gravitational pull. You
yourself have a gravitational interaction with the Earth and all things around
you.
> since this is observable when a
Uhhhh...I'd check your numbers on this. Unless the supertanker has the mass of
a small MOON you won't notice the effect whatsoever. Gravity is a very *weak*
effect. Only gets good and powerful in seriously large masses (and
supertankers are piddly nothings in the cosmos of significantly large mass).
The effect between the two boats you are citing is due to hydrodynamics, not
gravity.
> It is totally fesible that the 1/3 g of C&C is due to the MASS of B5 as
IF I follow your reasoning here (and you'll correct me on this if I'm
not :),
then there should be times when the direction of pull is 'up' for those in
CnC. CnC is in the rotating section of B5, near the center of said rotation.
This would also be evident in other parts of the station (what I am assuming
here is
that you are saying the mass of the zero-g section is sufficient enough
to exert a gravitational influence, yes?)
The 'gracity' effect (gracity? gravity!) you see on station B5 is due to
centripetal force, and not gravity. Centripetal forces you can simulate in a
car. Ramp up to high speed and suddenly take a corner (and somehow manage
to retain control of the car ;-). You'll feel yourself thrown to the
outside of the turn.
Now take away Earth's gravitational field (hell, move you and the car out into
space somewhere;). Repeat the exercise (we'll ignore the fact you need a road
or something). Turn yourself sideways, feet pointed in the opposite direction
of your impending turn. Make the turn. Suddenly you'll be 'thrown down';
you'll be essentially standing. Keep up the turn until you complete a circle.
This, in essence, is how B5 simulates (*not* generates) gravity.
Okay, I've rambled and you guys've probably learned more than you want -
unless you already knew this stuff, then you're bored to tears.:)
Mk
> sprayform.dev@netwales.co.uk writes:
SNIP
> -joachim
The effect, or something like it, is apparently real, but has nothing to do
with the tanker's gravity well. There was a paper published last year by a
mathematician on the tendency for 2 ships starting fairly close together on a
swell to move together, due to the action of the waves. The paper applied some
sort of quantum equation bobbins to the situation, but that's so far outside
my field that I'll shut up now!
Cheers,
> Joachim Heck wrote:
Maybe it's simply the fact that the tanker displaces more water than the
smaller ship and creates a simulated gravity well. As the ships bob up and
down in the water they create small wells or pockets from their displacement.
The wells fill up as the ship rises, drawing nearby water due to the flow of
least resistence. A nearby ship could be drawn in by the induced pull from the
water flow. I believe you are correct about today's tech requiring larges of
matter to measure gravitational fields. All objects possesing mass do produce
an attraction to other objects.
> As far as I can tell, starfuries move in a newtonian fashion when
Most of the shots of the big ships seem to be too short to display any length
of movement other than one direction. I do remember watching some Centauri
large ships thrust forward from a dead stop using a short burst from their
engines. The ships continued moving after the thrusting stopped, displaying
inertia.
On Thu, Mar 20, 1997 at 12:51:17 PM, M Hodgson <mkh100@york.ac.uk> wrote:
> C&C does rotate !!! It sits just above/below the docking bay which
> being closer to the cental axis of spin that the majority of the
1) Whenever they do one of the "outside window zooms" into B5, it is always
directly between the big docking arms and the axis of rotation -- we
never see it in any other location;
2) The people are standing with their _feet_ pointing towards the axis
of rotation.
Incidently, the Lurkers Guide to B5 is moving -- the new URL is http://
www.midwinter.com/lurk/lurker.html
> On Thu, 20 Mar 1997, Joachim Heck - SunSoft wrote:
> sprayform.dev@netwales.co.uk writes:
I would suspect it has more to do with the greater mass of a 20,000 ton tanker
not moving musch compared to a small boat such that a slight current or errant
wave will push the boat some distance before the ship even begins to move.
Otherwise ships passing in canals would always have problems getting stuck to
each other and those barges on the Mississippi
would never float away from the pack.
--Binhan
> C&C does rotate !!! It sits just above/below the docking bay which
Because we've never seen it in radically different locations doesn't mean
anything. For example, go back and check the season 2 intro/credits
stuff. When Sheridan states 'This is the story of the last of the Babylon
stations...' the camera zooms in on C&C. It is clearly shown just a bit away
from the
center, on the far side of the rotation axis from the zero-g pylons,
*and*
you can see the shadows of the zero-g pylons pass over it while the
station rotates. The camera follows the station rotation as it zooms in. And
here...
> 2) The people are standing with their _feet_ pointing towards the axis
...you can see that the crew within C&C is standing with their feet pointed
*outward*, 'down', and not towards the axis of rotation. And every other time
I've seen an outside-in shot the orientation has been correct: outward
and
'down'.
Late in season 3, when KoshVader comes to the station, we got an outside view
from up on the pylons of the front of the station, and we can clearly see C&C
way down below, in the main part of the station, rotating away.
Mk
> Having just spent some time reading the Urban Legends home page
It's hydrodynamics. Unfortunately I don't know near enough about the subject
to explain it in any sane manner, but that's what's going on
there with the boats. As for the tanker/rec boat gravitational
attraction thing, see an earlier post I made. The ships are entirely too small
to influence each other by gravity.
Mk
In message <01IGQ1OUXZ3U9GWVO8@avion.stsci.edu> "Out of my mind. Back in
> five minutes." writes:
> >All-in-all, B5 is remarkably clear
Mark... are implying that B5 is, instead, the latter rather than the former?
That it isn't Science Fantasy?
Just curious.
> >All-in-all, B5 is remarkably clear
Sorry, clarification: I was referring to the doubletalk polysylabic words
strung together.
Okay, it's a fine line 'tween the two. I put B5 in the category of Science
Fiction. I put a lot of stuff more fantastic like what Star Trek has become
(esp the more recent movies) into Science Fantasy.
> Just curious.
S'alright. If I'm ever unclear, ask away and I'll see if I can't be any more
vague.:)
Mk
In message <01IGQODT0DHE9GWXUM@avion.stsci.edu> "Out of my mind. Back in
> five minutes." writes:
Oh, I knew what you were referencing, I was wondering if I was inferring
correctly what you were implying...
> Okay, it's a fine line 'tween the two. I put B5 in the category of
Star Trek is *more* fantastic?... than a titanic battle between good and
evil?... in which our protagonists are destined to play major roles, lead
great alliances in war, defeat evil, rule decaying empires, fulfill
prophesies, die heroically in garish CGI?
And I asked if *I* was weird. Sheesh.
> Sorry, clarification: I was referring to the doubletalk polysylabic
Okay. I wouldn't want you to infer an implication that was implied for
inference when the implying was to be inferred otherwise.
> Okay, it's a fine line 'tween the two. I put B5 in the category of
Well...Star Trek has met God...and they keep coming up with this damned reset
button that I simply cannot find *any*where in real life! (a few people I'd
like to use it on, too;)
> And I asked if *I* was weird. Sheesh.
8-)
Mk
> Out of my mind. Back in five minutes. writes:
@:) >Star Trek is *more* fantastic?... than a titanic battle between @:) >good
and evil?... in which our protagonists are destined to play @:) >major roles,
lead great alliances in war, defeat evil, rule @:) >decaying empires, fulfill
prophesies, die heroically in garish
@:) >CGI?
@:)
@:) Well...Star Trek has met God...and they keep coming up with this @:)
damned reset button that I simply cannot find *any*where in real @:) life! (a
few people I'd like to use it on, too;)
It is true that B5 suffers from an overabundance of heroes. Pretty much
everybody is a hero. Or at least a major player. Witness the
most recent episode (that I've seen) - um, Atonement? Somethin like
that, anyway the one with Delenn and all that business. I won't spoil it but
of course she had to be involved in each and every important event that has
ever happened in Minbari history. I guess this is because the story, while
pretty nicely fleshed out, is still quite bare when compared to real life. And
it's also compressed into a short span of time. These people have to do a
lifetime of heroic work in just five (maybe four) short seasons. That's tough.
It means you, and your writers, have to reach a little.
Star Trek always offered the tantalizing possibility that every starship in
the fleet experienced events as strange and wonderous as those that occurred
on board the Enterprise. Unfortunately, they never really went out of their
way to show that this was true. When other ships appeared it was usually for
just long enough to get killed by whatever plot device the Enterprise crew was
about to succesfully fend off. I always thought this was pretty egotistical.
They could at least have had the occaisional message from an admiral
announcing
that another ship had succesfully engaged the planet-sized hard boiled
egg or the giant pink panther shaped cloud of "space asbestos". But it never
happened.
:(
SNIP
> Star Trek always offered the tantalizing possibility that every
Yes, but were the captains of those ships busily snogging scantily-clad
space bimbos of such mind-watering lusciousness as Marianna Hill?
Cheers,
> Having just spent some time reading the Urban Legends home page
yes I no it sounds odd but it was back a in the 70's I think and was
discovered as the bi-product of fluid dynamic experiments that took into
account waves,surface tension(that does not have a range in meters)etc.
As for mountains the map of N.India was altered a while back when accurate
satelite mapping revieled that the old BGS maps were ~1.6 km out. The plumb
bob had become more and more deflected towards the mountains as the mappers
moved N.
P.S.
I hope I'm not a word wrapper bandit but I do'nt think I can change the
settings on Eudora Light so have taken to returning each line!! Does it work?
Jon (top cat) SDL