Terra Notever

[Van Rijn]

One possibility would be the location of the various globular clusters in orbit round the Galaxy; they would move slowly enough to be identifiable, I think, assuming you could tell one from another. But the gravity field of the Milky Way might be too irregular to make this a useful indicator.

That is interesting. On the astronomy side, they could look at more distant galaxies, so they could focus on the solar system's motion about the Milky Way relative to the "fixed" galaxies. There are limits to accuracy, but given the solar system's velocity, they could work it out to a fair degree, I think.

[HenrikOlsen]

Position of all major planets should in combination be enough to identify time for a long time both back and forward, I can't remember if the chaotic effects are enough to make that unworkable on that time frame though.

[eburacum45]

Now I come to think about it further, binary stars should still be identifiable even after millions of years. So if you find a binary star with the exact characteristics of the Alpha Centauri system, or Alpha Geminorum, or Xi Scorpii, then you will be reasonably certain that you are looking at a familiar star. By estimating the movement of such a star over time it might be possible to measure the time difference reasonably accurately.

Only a few familiar binary stars might still be visible, but that should be enough.

[Garrison]

Finally, physics actually sets some pretty harsh limits: An ultra-light, ultra-strong gun could pack a ridiculously powerful punch, even with today's technology. But it would be ridiculously expensive. Not only that but the recoil would make the thing impractical anyway. Physics sets a limit on the shock a person's wrist and shoulder can absorb before shattering. Making a gun that exceeds this limit is no more pointful 130 years from now than it is today. Unless we're assuming that 130 years from now everybody will have much stronger wrists and shoulders. But we should note that while small arms have gotten a good deal "punchier" since the 1880s, human wrists and shoulders appear to be about the same as they ever were. And probably ever shall be.

The solution to that is powered armour exoskeletons, which we're half way towards now.

[ravens_cry]

Or recoilless guns.
Using my off the cuff calculations (using the present rate the moon is receding from the earth per year and multiplying by 85 million) the moon would be about 10% closer. I do not believe that would be nearly enough to make the moon look as big as they showed in the first episode.

[DukePaul]

I would prefer a different approach, capture a few goodhearted earnest singing religious teenagers from the future Earth and release them into the wild to scare off the nasty heretic dinos. The perfect self-replicating non-lethal bio-weapon with no kick or recoil.

[HenrikOlsen]

I would prefer a different approach, capture a few goodhearted earnest singing religious teenagers from the future Earth and release them into the wild to scare off the nasty heretic dinos. The perfect self-replicating non-lethal bio-weapon with no kick or recoil.

See #22.

[Rhaedas]

Or recoilless guns.
Using my off the cuff calculations (using the present rate the moon is receding from the earth per year and multiplying by 85 million) the moon would be about 10% closer. I do not believe that would be nearly enough to make the moon look as big as they showed in the first episode.

You're probably close, but isn't the rate that the Moon moves out changing by a small degree? Maybe not enough in the last millions of years to make a huge factor, but I thought it was slowing as it goes out.

[ravens_cry]

You're probably close, but isn't the rate that the Moon moves out changing by a small degree? Maybe not enough in the last millions of years to make a huge factor, but I thought it was slowing as it goes out.

If it is, my Googling hasn't shown it. But even if it means the moon would be a few hundred kilometres closer then my calculations, it wouldn't be enough to make it that big.

[Jim]

Well, yes, but it was close to the horizon so it would appear even bigger.

Actually, I can give the show that one. Most folks are unfamiliar with the moon's recession anyway, and making it even larger simply makes it easier to point it out.

[ravens_cry]

Well, yes, but it was close to the horizon so it would appear even bigger.

It didn't seem that close to the horizon.

Actually, I can give the show that one. Most folks are unfamiliar with the moon's recession anyway, and making it even larger simply makes it easier to point it out.

Ah, so it's a "good lie". Not true, but a good stepping stone to truth. Like the "mini-solar system" view of the atom.

[Jim]

It didn't seem that close to the horizon.

That was actually a sideways reference to Phil's many, many articles about the moon looking bigger on the horizon (because it's closer to us then).

[ravens_cry]

It didn't seem that close to the horizon.

That was actually a sideways reference to Phil's many, many articles about the moon looking bigger on the horizon (because it's closer to us then).

Ah, thank you for explaining.

[HenrikOlsen]

It didn't seem that close to the horizon.

That was actually a sideways reference to Phil's many, many articles about the moon looking bigger on the horizon (because it's closer to us then).

Erhm, that isn't the answer as it's actually farther away when it's on the horizon than when it's right above you.

It's the mental model of distance to the things up there, which is basically that everything's on the inside of an upturned shallow bowl, and since the angular size is actually virtually identical and we model it as a lot farther away, the reverse perspective transformation our brain does automatically to compensate for distances makes it look much bigger to us, even though it isn't.

[Jim]

Henrik, have you actually read what Phil has written on the subject?

"It's a joke, son. I say, it's a joke. Joke, that is."

[HenrikOlsen]

Henrik, have you actually read what Phil has written on the subject?

"It's a joke, son. I say, it's a joke. Joke, that is."

Ehrm, yes.

I'm just really bad at recognizing when deliberate misinformation is a joke. Mainly because I don't understand how anyone can consider lying to be funny.

[Noclevername]

Ehrm, yes.

I'm just really bad at recognizing when deliberate misinformation is a joke. Mainly because I don't understand how anyone can consider lying to be funny.

Most jokes have punchlines that are not the literal truth. It's fiction, not lying.

[HenrikOlsen]

Most jokes consists of more than just the lie.

[Noclevername]

Most jokes consists of more than just the lie.

I have not read the article(s) in question. Is that really all that Phil wrote?

[Mr Gorsky]

Isn't the question of why they used time travel as the premise answered by the name "Brannon Braga" on the production team?

[SeanF]

Henrik, are you talking about Jim's original comment:

Well, yes, but it was close to the horizon so it would appear even bigger.

Or the one you replied to:

That was actually a sideways reference to Phil's many, many articles about the moon looking bigger on the horizon (because it's closer to us then).

The original comment was the joke, but it's an inside joke, with the "truth" of it implied. It's no different than somebody saying about a photo, "It must be fake because you can't see the stars!" It's a humorous reference to a fallacy that others employ.

The second comment is neither a joke nor a lie. Phil has written "many articles about the moon looking bigger on the horizon (because it's closer to us then)." His articles have all been about how it's not true.

[eugenek]

Military small arms have a different design philosophy, and international restrictions than hunting weapons. Military ammo is designed for the most part to disable, not kill. The design philosophy being, that if you kill someone, then they are dead. But if you wound someone, then you are tying up that person. The personnel required to transport the wounded person. And the resources required to care for the wounded person. Hunting rifles, and ammunition are designed to put the animal down as quickly as possible. You don't want to have to track down a wounded animal, or worse have it attack you.
David.

I don't think this is true. I think the "shoot to wound to tie up enemy resources" is an urban myth. In most cases when the military is shooting at something they are trying to make it stop doing what it was doing. Killing an enemy usually accomplishes that goal. The problem with a wounded enemy is they are not dead. A wounded enemy can still shoot back, lob a grenade, press a button or operate a communications device. Additionally, if a unit overtakes an enemy position which has wounded enemy soldiers, those wounded now become the unit's logistical problem. Perhaps even more than had their own side maintained control of them since these wounded would need to be guarded as well.

However, I'm sure there are specific cases where a target is desired alive but shooting said target isn't the best way to achieve that goal. There are very very very few non-serious gunshot wounds. A "wounding" leg shot can kill someone very quickly.

[R.A.F.]

Isn't the question of why they used time travel as the premise answered by the name "Brannon Braga" on the production team?

Nice one.

Another reason not to watch...

[Solfe]

Isn't Brannon Braga from Star Trek Voyager? Or was that Enterprise?

[Noclevername]

Isn't Brannon Braga from Star Trek Voyager? Or was that Enterprise?

Yes and yes.

[Solfe]

Oh, good than I didn't waste hours of my life watching TV, I actually learned something new.

[HenrikOlsen]

Isn't Brannon Braga from Star Trek Voyager? Or was that Enterprise?

Yes, Yes and he authored the weirder episodes of Next Generation as well.

[Noclevername]

If Braga and time travel are involved, expect Nazis to show up at some point.

[Van Rijn]

My little story on Braga, bad acting, Star Trek and time travel:

http://www.bautforum.com/showthread....130#post604130

[Krel]

I don't think this is true. I think the "shoot to wound to tie up enemy resources" is an urban myth. In most cases when the military is shooting at something they are trying to make it stop doing what it was doing. Killing an enemy usually accomplishes that goal. The problem with a wounded enemy is they are not dead. A wounded enemy can still shoot back, lob a grenade, press a button or operate a communications device. Additionally, if a unit overtakes an enemy position which has wounded enemy soldiers, those wounded now become the unit's logistical problem. Perhaps even more than had their own side maintained control of them since these wounded would need to be guarded as well.

However, I'm sure there are specific cases where a target is desired alive but shooting said target isn't the best way to achieve that goal. There are very very very few non-serious gunshot wounds. A "wounding" leg shot can kill someone very quickly.

I have to say tha "shoot to wound to tie up enemy resources" is a bit of a simplification. This philosophy came about during the 60s after studying previous conflicts. Although the people that developed it forgot that during WWII the Japanese used to medicate their wounded and send then into American positions armed with hand grenades. The Vietnamese did much the same thing, they would dope up their wounded and leave them behind with explosives. The M16 round in the 60s was designed to tumble in soft tissue and produce horrific wounds to the point where if they lived, then they would not be of much use in any position. If they eventually died then fine, but in the meantime they would tie up a lot of resources. The tumbling characteristic of the round proved to be a liability in the jungle, the bullet would hit the foliage and start tumbling not hitting much of anything.

David.