Star trek or star wars?

[bratvada]

As a child I used to adore Star Wars. But I grew up (debatable), and now I prefer Star Trek. Actually I am really enjoying Discovery, not such a fan of the new concept films.

 

[Sax]

Star Wars is pretty good, but Trek has more substance

Slightly off topic, and a little old, but I found while looking for more examples of Vegan Trekkers.

The Future is Vegan, According to Star Trek​

There's an episode where Riker is assigned to a Klingon ship (A Matter of Honor...outstanding episode, and funny too!) and he eats a live animal. In another episode Picard reveals he brought several cases of caviar from earth. So maybe flexitarian is more accurate.

I really like TNG. I feel like it captured the optimism of that period after the Cold War but before 9/11. It seems pretty naive in hindsight but that was the world I came of age in. It would be fascinating to see a Star Trek series that focused more on economics...corporate vs. government power struggles (or both colluding against the people!), resource competition and depletion, etc. Or exploring the ways technology can disrupt, invade, and control our lives.

I heard a rumor last year that Patrick Stewart was going to play Picard in a new Star Trek series. Get the Black Mirror writers in on that! Black Star Mirror Trek!

 

[Lou]

I think Riker eating a live animal on a Klingon ship falls under the "you are stranded on a desert island" scenario. But this time it's you are serving aboard a Klingon ship and need to prove yourself.

And I don't know for sure, but perhaps that caviar was replicated. It's just that everyone knows the best caviar replication is done in Paris.

 

[Sax]

Michael Dorn (who played Worf) is now vegan:

Worf is the funniest!

 

[Deleted member 3018]

I find the droids in Star Wars entertaining, especially C-3PO and R2-D2. In Star Wars some droids are sentient, it had been shown in a very subtle manner, before L3-37 in Han Solo movie.

 

[Lou]

 

[Deleted member 3018]

This is probably one of the most unpopular opinions ever, but...

I think that Han Solo was a disgusting creep. The way he "seduces" Leia doesn't come up as manly, but rather predatory. Makes me wonder how they even got married and if Kylo Ren had some other (than to become a Sith) motives to kill his father.

I'm sorry, if this offended someone.

 

[Deleted member 3018]

Ok... Maybe I should soften my opinion a bit... I think I was being too harsh. But to be fair, Han Solo is being creepy at the Empire Strikes Back movie...
I don't understand how they eventually fall in love... I think I must have missed something. At first Leia is being like "get away from me you bantha slime." and then after a while, she kisses him. Most illogical, like Spock would say.
I suspect love potion, because in the Star Wars universe there are space wizards (the Jedi) and dragons, magic potions would fit in.
But I suppose that is just a pathetic way of me trying to make my theory work.

And one thing that bothers me too, is that when, in The Force Awakens, Kylo Ren is reading Rey's mind, he says about Han Solo: "he is like a father you never had... he would have disappointed you."

But I don't know... I must be mistaken, my theory isn't perfect.
And how could I dislike someone who did the Kessel Run in less than 12 parsecs?

On a lighter note...
Would you watch Star Wars and Aliens put together?

[GALLERY=media, 346]Now That Disney Owns Fox, Maybe We Could Actually Get This Cross Over. In My Dreams - Imgur by StrangeOtter posted Feb 13, 2019 at 8:38 PM[/GALLERY]

 

[Lou]

There are a lot of reasons for not liking Fox, but as long as we are talking Science Fiction. It was criminal of them to cancel Firefly after only 9 episodes.

 

[Paul Bradford]

Lots of interesting stories, I’ll admit. Almost all in a context that is not real. It’s not the stories I object to, it’s the context. The stories, characters and action is the main draw of the movies – but to enjoy all these, one must accept the context of the movie. Much like in other types of movies. Say – a western. Horseback riding, oil lamps, saloons and six bullet guns belong – cars, airplanes, electricity and machine guns don’t belong. One cannot immerse themselves in a western when there are elements that make it obviously not a western.

In the same way, science fiction as a context relies on one’s ability to shelve reality in favor of a context that isn’t real.




The reason I asked you to consider the in water/in air scenario is to get you to think about the context of “gravity”. Do you think it works differently in water? This is the force that is supposed to be holding trillions of gallons of water to a spinning planet.

The correct answer to why objects rise or fall is relative densities, not gravity. A submarine in the water, what affects it’s depth? Gravity? No. Relative density. To dive, it releases air, changing it’s density in the water. To rise, it uses air compressors to add air to the sub, and change it’s density relative to the water so that it will rise.

Space is supposed to be a vacuum. In the water, you are surrounded by a dense material you can move around in. On the ground, you can move along the ground, but jumping up always means coming back down, not floating around. This is because you are more dense than the medium (air) that surrounds you. But water or air provide us something to “push off of” to move. Space, what do you push off of? It’s a vacuum.


But let’s say there was some magical quality about space that allows one to travel in it. So in other words, not a true vacuum. How does one defy the gravitation force that keeps planets spinning around the sun? Science fiction movies take this power for granted. It’s easy to jet around in space and defy this massive force that keeps planets both spinning and rotating around the sun. Even the so called rules of the universe are contradicted by most science fiction movies. One must put up with a huge amount of cognitive dissonance to accept the “reality” of them.



There are 13 moons in a year. Check this year, for example. Full moon was on the 21st January, 2019. If one counts to December, there are only 12 full moons. However, 21st of January to December 31 is not one year. In January 2020, there is a full moon on the 11th. Making 13 full moons between 21st Jan 2019 and 21st Jan 2020. Year after year after year, 13. If I’m wrong, point to a year where there was less than 13 full moons.

The reason your logic points to there always being 13 full moons in a year is because you are constantly changing the start of the year date to coincide with a full moon, as we are agreed that there are actually slightly more than 12 full moons in a year then your method will always result in 13 full moons making an appearance. However if you keep your starting point at a particular date, say January 1st, and the finishing date 365 days later, December 31st, then most years have 12 full moons, but roughly every third year you get 13 full moons. A full moon occurs every 29.5 days, bloody close to a month, hence the name m(o)onth.

With regards to propulsion in space, rocket engines work obeying Newtons third law, every action has an equal and opposite reaction. The expulsion of the propellant acts against the motor that ejects it, causing a motion in the opposite direction equal in force to that released.

Relative density can apply alongside gravity, they don't have to be mutually exclusive.
The theory of gravity can be used to explain certain things, most commonly the moons gravitational effect on the Earths oceans, causing tides. That has nothing to do with relative density.

 

[Paul Bradford]

Star trek, not seen star wars yet.

 

[Nekodaiden]

The reason your logic points to there always being 13 full moons in a year is because you are constantly changing the start of the year date to coincide with a full moon, as we are agreed that there are actually slightly more than 12 full moons in a year then your method will always result in 13 full moons making an appearance. However if you keep your starting point at a particular date, say January 1st, and the finishing date 365 days later, December 31st, then most years have 12 full moons, but roughly every third year you get 13 full moons. A full moon occurs every 29.5 days, bloody close to a month, hence the name m(o)onth.

No, this is incorrect. If a full moon is not present in January, until say, the 20th, and there are only 12 from the 20th of January to December 31 - then it is incorrect to say there were only 12 moons in that year - because not a full year was counted. Therefore, it is necessary to go to the same date (the 20th in this case) of the following year to see how many moons there were in 365 days.

With regards to propulsion in space, rocket engines work obeying Newtons third law, every action has an equal and opposite reaction. The expulsion of the propellant acts against the motor that ejects it, causing a motion in the opposite direction equal in force to that released.

In a vacuum, there is nothing to "push off of".

Relative density can apply alongside gravity, they don't have to be mutually exclusive.
The theory of gravity can be used to explain certain things, most commonly the moons gravitational effect on the Earths oceans, causing tides. That has nothing to do with relative density.

Gravity is a magical force that keeps trillions of tons of water stuck to spinning earth, but is so weak it allows a helium balloon to defy it. If the moon was responsible for tides, why only for oceans? Shouldn't it also affect smaller bodies of water like pools and lakes?

 

[Paul Bradford]

No, this is incorrect. If a full moon is not present in January, until say, the 20th, and there are only 12 from the 20th of January to December 31 - then it is incorrect to say there were only 12 moons in that year - because not a full year was counted. Therefore, it is necessary to go to the same date (the 20th in this case) of the following year to see how many moons there were in 365 days.

It doesn't matter which date you use as a start date, providing that you continue to use the same start date for each consecutive 365 days, If you do so you will find that roughly 2 out of 3 consecutive sets of 365 days will have 12 full moons, the other one will have 13 full moons. That is a fact, and undeniable.

In a vacuum, there is nothing to "push off of".

The force is an equal and opposite reaction to the force released by the rocket, it doesn't have to 'push off' anything

Gravity is a magical force that keeps trillions of tons of water stuck to spinning earth, but is so weak it allows a helium balloon to defy it. If the moon was responsible for tides, why only for oceans? Shouldn't it also affect smaller bodies of water like pools and lakes?

It does, just to an extent that is barely noticeable.

 

[Forest Nymph]

What is even going on here? These are topics covered in high school Earth Science or community college Physical Geography.

1. Gravity is real.
2. Moon affects tides.
3. Yes 12 moons in a WESTERN lunar calendar - I will agree this is actually subjective and cultural, not as "scientific" as the other two topics. For example, the Hebrew calendar measures the year differently, more closely with real lunar cycles.

 

[Forest Nymph]

It does, just to an extent that is barely noticeable.

Yeah the full moon and new moon in particular affects human and other mammalian behavior, including female menstrual cycles.

 

[Lou]

We did send spacecraft to the moon. Despite space being a vacuum.

 

[Nekodaiden]

It doesn't matter which date you use as a start date, providing that you continue to use the same start date for each consecutive 365 days, If you do so you will find that roughly 2 out of 3 consecutive sets of 365 days will have 12 full moons, the other one will have 13 full moons. That is a fact, and undeniable.

I'm going to say the same thing I said to TofuRobot in post #20. Here: https://veganforum.org/threads/star-trek-or-star-wars.3560/#post-20267

Do it and show me where I am in error. Please be specific and name the year, including a full 365 days from start of count to finish.

The force is an equal and opposite reaction to the force released by the rocket, it doesn't have to 'push off' anything

In a pool of water, one can travel in any direction one wants. You "push off" the water to travel in it. In the air, your density and lack of buoyancy without special equiptment is limited, so you go one direction - down. However, you can still travel in other directions if you change your buoyancy - like what would happen if you enter a hot air balloon. That said - one still pushes off of air.

Space is supposed to be a vacuum. No air, no water - no density at all. Nothing to push off. Space travel is a fiction.

It does, just to an extent that is barely noticeable.

Gravity is a very convenient and flexible force that can be immensely strong when it suits, but also infinitesimally weak when it suits, right?

 

[Sax]

Yesterday's Enterprise is one of TNGs best. Cause and Effect was another great "weird timeline" episode.

Something about the holodeck episodes feels like a cop out on the writer's parts, and yet they were fun anyway. Ship in a Bottle is my vote for best holodeck ep.

Anyone else have favorite TNG episodes?

 

[Lou]

I found a list of holodeck episodes. I hadn't seen them all, and there were also that I didn't like. I feel like the holodeck was a writer's extravagance.

My favorite might be the one when Picard is a "hard-boiled detective"

 

[Paul Bradford]

Do it and show me where I am in error. Please be specific and name the year, including a full 365 days from start of count to finish.

starting today, Feb 19th 2019, until Feb 18th 2020 there are full moons on; 19th Feb, 21 Mar, 19 April, 18 May, 17 Jun, 16 Jul, 15 Aug, 14 Sep, 13 Oct, 12, Nov, 12, Dec, 10, Jan , 9 Feb. Total 13 full Moons.

From Feb 19th 2020 until Feb 18th 2021, 9th Mar, 8th Apr, 7th May, 5th Jun, 5th Jul, 3rd Aug, 2, Sep, 1st Oct, 31st Oct, 30th Nov, 30th Dec, 28th Jan , Total 12 full Moons

from Feb 19th 2021 until Feb 18th 2022, 27th Feb, 28th Mar, 27th, April, 26th, May, 24th Jun, 24th Jul, 22nd Aug, 21st Sept, 20th Oct, 19th Nov, 19th Dec, 17th Jan, 16th Feb, Total 13 Full Moons

from Feb 19th 2022 until Feb 18th 2023: 18th Mar, 16th Apr, 16th May, 14th Jun, 13th Jul, 12th Aug, 10th Sept, 9th Oct, 8th Nov, 8th Dec, 6th Jan , 5th Feb. Total 12 Full Moons

From Feb 19th 2023 until feb 18th 2024: 7th Mar, 6th Apr, 5th May, 4th Jun, 3rd jul, 1st Aug, 29th Sep, 28th Oct, 27th Nov, 27th Dec, 25th Jan Total of 11 full Moons

so that's 4 sets of consecutive 365 day periods, 2 have 13 full moons, 1 has 12 full moons, and 1 has 11 full moons.
check the Data and let me know which you disagree with. ( full moons are based on London Date line)