> Shadow, thank you for your expatiation of your understanding of the
> theory of gravity. You know that gravitons don't really exist right?
> Gravitons are theoretical particles that MIGHT explain how gravity
> works, but it is just a theory (one of many).
Thing is, if they exist, they are "exchange particles" that (as
virtual particles) carry a force. As such, they *cannot* work as
described.
Particles that did work as described wouldn't be gravitons.
> Joel's theory of gravity seems to work like electric current and
> magnetic fields. Which is just as reasonable as any other writers'
> version. Now if he had call them "super-dense particles"
> or "Energized Cubane(C8)" instead of gravitons would you have had any
> issue?
It's possible to generate gravity like forces by rapid movement of
very dense masses. We can't do it, but nothing says it won't work and
lots of stuff says it will.
But that has its own problems. The late Dr. Robert Forward went into
that sort of thing in great detail in many articles and papers.
We've already got "mesons" that don't act like mesons in Traveller.
We don't need yet another example of swiping the name of a "real"
particle for something that acts in ways the "real" one wouldn't.
>
> While you could have actually offerd some kind of suggestion, you
> elected to attack someone's concept. Why?
Because I was tired, and didn't have *time* to go into more detail.
And I *did* make a suggestion. Giving *unnecessary* details *always*
comes back to haunt you. Using technobabble unnecessarily does so
doubly.
> Was your last comment really necessary?
Yes. It's a concise *accurate* statement of the single most basic
rule in SF.
> Did you send these same kinds of flip remarks to
> the writers of StarTrek since they can't even keep their technobabble
> straight in the same episode?
It wasn't a "flip remark".
> Joel has put some thought and effort into his idea where you clearly
> did not put any effort into your reply. In my playbook that makes
> Joel smarter than you. (It is clear that the only reason you would
> have made a post like this is that you wanted to show that you were
> smarter than Joel.)
No. I made it because I wanted to stop him from doing something that
could make him look silly to any player who knew about gravitons.
> Give the rest of us a break.
Sure. And why don't *you* quit *assuming* attacks are being made.
> Try to add to the creative efforts - not throw water on them.
I've added quite a bit to the creative efforts on the TML *ever since
it started* (and elsewhere, I've had a pro SF writer thank me for
some help I gave him on stuff that eventually became part of his
first book).
I pointed out a serious "oops". And might post some ideas when I have
the spare time. Assuming I don't get flamed so much by folks who
can't see that a "that particle doesn't work that way" *is* a
contribution that I decide it's not worth my time.
I've got tax problems, money problems, *several* ongoing stories that
people are after me to finish, and that's just the top of the list.
Just because someone points out a problem, that doesn't mean they are
"sniping" or belittling or trying to show how smart they are.
Pointing out *bugs* is just as important as coming up with ideas.
Hell, ask any writer. The ideas are easy. It's the writing that's
hard. And part of that is having folks point out where you got it
wrong or it "looks wrong".
>
Next time find out what is going on *before* flaming.
--
Leonard Erickson (aka shadow)
shadow at shadowgard dot com
---- LSpots keywords ?> ---- HM ADS ?>
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
- Visit your group "Traveller_TNE" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.