Origin of Harada - discussion

[fury143]

I don't know why but when reading the book, it felt like some of the concepts of the show Heroes. One example the exploding man who couldn't control his powers in Harbingers and the exploding man who couldn't control his powers on Heroes.

[ManofTheAtom]

I don't know why but when reading the book, it felt like some of the concepts of the show Heroes. One example the exploding man who couldn't control his powers in Harbingers and the exploding man who couldn't control his powers on Heroes.

Corrections.

Watching heroes feels like some of the concepts of the comic book Harbinger

[cjv]

So someone turning into Solar is not impossible, just improbable?

Gotta disagree.

If you go by the Rod Serling quote, I would have to say that Valiant Comics are fantasy...maybe science fantasy, but still fantasy.



Chris

Or just really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really advanced science.

Did you hear about this machine that sends paper through the phone lines? Heck, have you even heard of this thing called the telephone that sends sound through wires?

Doesn't send paper. it sends digital signals that are converted into a print/don't print code on the receiving end.

And the telephone doesn't send sounds, it sends digital signals that are converted into a vibration code for the receiver on the other end.

Look, it may be "advanced ..." science...but you can use that cop-out about almost ANYTHING. Are you willing to say that ANYTHING fictional could be achieved by "advanced advanced advanced advanced advanced advanced advanced..." science.

And anyway, saying that is a cop out, since Phil exists in OUR time, with OUR scientific abilities and equipment. It isn't in the future.

I will certainly say that perhaps Phil's machine is scientifically possible (although the debate on that issue seems to have reached a dead end, with some ideas being rejected, other ideas being refuted). But it is a leap in fantasy to say that a machine that can convert matter to energy (just a guess) would convert a MAN to energy, and the man would still retain not only consciousness, but exhibit the ability to control their own energy (which they now consist of) as well as all other energy.

I am not saying Phil's machine is fantasy. I am saying what it did to Phil is.

What happened to Phil may be improbable now, but in 500, 1000, 5000, 10,000 or a million years from now it may bé possible.

If it is possible in a million years, how the *F* did Phil do it now, with current technology, and a current understanding of physics? And no one else was able to replicate it ever? Even in the 2000 years (?) till Magnus?

Science fiction like Babylon 5 and Stargate SG-1/Atlantis has shown that given enough time humans may evolve into beings made of energy (humans becoming like the Vorlons in the last episode of the fourth season of B5 and the Lanteans/Ancients becoming the Ascended in Stargate SG-1).

Dude, you are treating these science fiction shows like they are some kind of text book from school. Babylon 5 and Stargate SG-1 haven't "shown" anything about people evolving into energy being....they have shown how a WRITER can make up a STORY about people evolving into energy beings.

Repeat after me: Those tv shows are fiction. They aren't real. They don't show what people will or may evolve into. They are from a writers imagination.

Chris

[ManofTheAtom]

Doesn't send paper. it sends digital signals that are converted into a print/don't print code on the receiving end.

And the telephone doesn't send sounds, it sends digital signals that are converted into a vibration code for the receiver on the other end.

I know the fax doesn't send paper, but try to explain it to someone from the 19th Century.

Try to explain the IPod to someone from the 5th Century.

Look, it may be "advanced ..." science...but you can use that cop-out about almost ANYTHING. Are you willing to say that ANYTHING fictional could be achieved by "advanced advanced advanced advanced advanced advanced advanced..." science.

I don't remember if I brought it up on this thread or another one, but again we're talking about the same thing that was discussed in Back to the Future 3 between Clara and Doc Brown about the work of Jules Verne.

To her, a woman from the 19th Century, it looked like science fiction, while to him, a man from the mid-20th Century, it was science fact.

Clara (who we can call a proxy for REAL world 19th Century people) lived in 1885, while Doc Brown (who we can call a proxy for REAL world mid-20th Century people) lived in 1955... that was a mere difference of 70 years.

In those 70 years, a LOT of stuff that "Clara" (remember, Clara stands for REAL world 19th Century people) believed to be limited to science fiction became science fact.

Who is to say what will happen in the next 70 years. Look at the technological advances that have been made in the 70 years since "Doc Brown's" time.

And anyway, saying that is a cop out, since Phil exists in OUR time, with OUR scientific abilities and equipment. It isn't in the future.

Again, it's science fiction. Stargate SG-1 takes place in OUR time, but look at what happens in it.

In Stargate, science is represented by the need for six points in space and one point of departure to travel from one planet to another. The Fiction is represented by the existance of a machine that can create a wormhole.

I will certainly say that perhaps Phil's machine is scientifically possible (although the debate on that issue seems to have reached a dead end, with some ideas being rejected, other ideas being refuted). But it is a leap in [i[fantasy[/i] to say that a machine that can convert matter to energy (just a guess) would convert a MAN to energy, and the man would still retain not only consciousness, but exhibit the ability to control their own energy (which they now consist of) as well as all other energy.

That's what makes it science fiction.

The science is the method employed to turn a man into energy. The fiction is the energy's ability to retain a conciousness.

I am not saying Phil's machine is fantasy. I am saying what it did to Phil is.

And I think we've agreed on that before, that the energy retaining a conciousness and pure fiction... what we still don't agree on is the probability of a machine that can turn flesh, blood, muscle, and bone into energy.

If it is possible in a million years, how the *F* did Phil do it now, with current technology, and a current understanding of physics? And no one else was able to replicate it ever? Even in the 2000 years (?) till Magnus?

Fiction using science as its basis, same way that Stargate uses science (six points in space + one point of departure) as its basis for fiction (wormholes that travel to other planets).

Dude, you are treating these science fiction shows like they are some kind of text book from school. Babylon 5 and Stargate SG-1 haven't "shown" anything about people evolving into energy being....they have shown how a WRITER can make up a STORY about people evolving into energy beings.

No I'm not. I'm using them as examples of how in SCIENCE FICTION this idea has been explored before.

What you're doing is acting like an *SQUEE* again because it's easier than accepting that I was using an example from one science fiction story to explain another.

What I was also doing was telling you that you don't know what will happen in a million years time in the real world, which is why you can't dismiss the probability of what science can achieve.

What those writers do is embrace those probabilities and come up with fictional stories.

[cjv]

And I think we've agreed on that before, that the energy retaining a conciousness and pure fiction... what we still don't agree on is the probability of a machine that can turn flesh, blood, muscle, and bone into energy.

No, that's not it.

I am not at all arguing about a machine that may exist in some future date that could completely turn someone into energy. That may be possible. It would seem unreal to us now, but it may be possible.

What I am arguing about is someone retaining their consciousness, the ability to think, while in that state. That someone who is somehow transformed into energy can suddenly control themselves in that form, or that they can suddenly control all forms of energy.

You seem to be saying it's possible, that it could be done with some incredible advanced technology (more than 70 years in the future, I would guess). I am saying I don't think it is possible at all. We know how the brain works to some degree - WITHOUT A BRAIN there is a strong, highly probable likelihood that...well...you can't think anymore.

You mention the whole thing with Jules Verne and it seeming like fiction. Yes, it was. But there were also books published then that seemed like fiction, and WERE fiction. They described things that simply couldn't, and can't, exist. You can't simply use the cop out that something "may happen" or "may be possible" at some future date - because we have no way of knowing what is and isn't. We can only work with what we know now.

The Valiant Universe was supposed to be, for lack of a better phrase, the world outside your window. As such, *IF* you are claiming that the technology Phil used to turn himself into energy is realistic because it could be from 1 million years in the future, then you are basically saying that you think, in Oak Ridge TN where they have a nuclear reactor, my father could somehow stumble on to the technology that won't be discovered for 1 million years that could turn him into Solar.

Do you think my father could become Solar? I don't.

What you're doing is acting like an *SQUEE* again because it's easier than accepting that I was using an example from one science fiction story to explain another.

But the stories/worlds are distinct and separate from each other. You can use one as an example, an analogy for the other, but you can't use one to EXPLAIN the existance of the other. That is what you do a lot of time. You say something like "well, it is like this on Stargate, so it has to be like that in the Valiant universe". They are distinct from each other, and what may be true in one of the fictional plot lines may be completely FALSE in the other.

In addtion, when you say "Science fiction like Babylon 5 and Stargate SG-1/Atlantis has shown that given enough time humans may evolve into beings made of energy" you are stating it like it is a FACT, but it isn't. It is a made up storyline. It is NOT a fact that "humans may evolve into being made of energy". It is not a fact that ANYTHING could evolve into being made of energy. At BEST it is speculation, an interesting idea.

What I was also doing was telling you that you don't know what will happen in a million years time in the real world, which is why you can't dismiss the probability of what science can achieve.

So again, I ask, if you believe that Valiant was the world outside our window, and Phil somehow stumbled upon technology/theory that is from one million years from now, then you must believe that there is a chance my father, who works in the nucelar facility, could somehow do the same thing. Do you? Can my father become Solar?

Chris

[Chiclo]

PS - There were crude fax machines during the Napoleonic Wars, which were in the early 19th Century.

[cjv]

BTW, if a physicist (who knows much more than I do) were to tell me that there is some possible theoretical basis for Phil turning into a sentient being made of, and able to control energy, I would be happy to admit that I am wrong, and that it is more (as you put it) science fiction than fantasy. But I would like to know how it would occur, and what the theory is behind it that would allow such a conversion.

Chris

[depluto]

PS - There were crude fax machines during the Napoleonic Wars, which were in the early 19th Century.

That was just some dude named Pierre Fax who ran really fast and could dodge cannonballs. As for whether he was crude, I don't know about the man's character.

[ManofTheAtom]

"]I am not at all arguing about a machine that may exist in some future date that could completely turn someone into energy. That may be possible. It would seem unreal to us now, but it may be possible.

What I am arguing about is someone retaining their consciousness, the ability to think, while in that state. That someone who is somehow transformed into energy can suddenly control themselves in that form, or that they can suddenly control all forms of energy.

You seem to be saying it's possible, that it could be done with some incredible advanced technology (more than 70 years in the future, I would guess). I am saying I don't think it is possible at all. We know how the brain works to some degree - WITHOUT A BRAIN there is a strong, highly probable likelihood that...well...you can't think anymore.

No I'm not.

What I've said, MANY times over now, is that a machine that can turn a man into energy is SCIENCE, and that energy retaining conciousness is FICTION.

Imagine, had you actually read my posts you would have seen when I said that over half a dozen times.

You mention the whole thing with Jules Verne and it seeming like fiction. Yes, it was. But there were also books published then that seemed like fiction, and WERE fiction. They described things that simply couldn't, and can't, exist. You can't simply use the cop out that something "may happen" or "may be possible" at some future date - because we have no way of knowing what is and isn't. We can only work with what we know now.

Right, which is why a machine that can turn someone into energy is possible with science. It may not happen today, but it may happen any time in the future.

That energy being able to retain its conciousness, as I've said many times now, would be fiction... I think that's about the 7th or 10th time I say it.

The Valiant Universe was supposed to be, for lack of a better phrase, the world outside your window. As such, *IF* you are claiming that the technology Phil used to turn himself into energy is realistic because it could be from 1 million years in the future, then you are basically saying that you think, in Oak Ridge TN where they have a nuclear reactor, my father could somehow stumble on to the technology that won't be discovered for 1 million years that could turn him into Solar.

No, I didn't say that.

Phil Seleski created using today's technology something that may not exist for another 500 or even one million years, same way in the 80's Seth Brundle in the Fly created a teleporter, which may not exist for another 500 years.

That's what characters like Seleski and Brundle do in fiction, they create technology that doesn't exist in today's world while they world they live in reflects our own.

Brundle didn't live in a futuristic metropolis any more than Seleski did. They lived in New York and Muskogee respectively, the same New York and Muskogee that existed in their respective eras, yet they created machines that couldn't exist in those eras... that's the fictional aspect of the stories. The scientific aspect is the idea that, like a fax does with paper, Seth's machine was able to teleport a man, while Seleski's machine was able to turn a man into energy.

Just because their technology was "futuristic", for lack of a better term, it doesn't mean that these two scientists couldn't have created it.

In the 1960's, Star Trek's Kirk used a pocket-sized communicator to contact the Enterprise that seemed futuristic. Today, 40 yearsl ater, we have cel-phones that do the same thing (sure, we can't call the Shuttle on a cel phone, but in 500 years time our technology will surpass what Star Trek presented as futustic. Real world tech will go beyond the fictional tech).

Do you think my father could become Solar? I don't.

I never said he would. Phil Seleski created a "futuristic" machine, or discovered a new science... both arguments have been made.

But the stories/worlds are distinct and separate from each other. You can use one as an example, an analogy for the other, but you can't use one to EXPLAIN the existance of the other. That is what you do a lot of time. You say something like "well, it is like this on Stargate, so it has to be like that in the Valiant universe". They are distinct from each other, and what may be true in one of the fictional plot lines may be completely FALSE in the other.

I never said that what happens in SG justifies what happens in the VU. I'm giving you examples of OVERALL science fiction that is similar in context to VALIANT (i.e. worlds outside our window).

Neither SG, nor the Fly took place in futuristic science fiction-y worlds, they took place in worlds not unlike our own.

Sure, with B5 you could make the argument that it was a futuristic science fiction-y world, but in its case I was using it as an overall example of how science fiction uses the idea of man evolving (evolution being a science...) into energy.

In addtion, when you say "Science fiction like Babylon 5 and Stargate SG-1/Atlantis has shown that given enough time humans may evolve into beings made of energy" you are stating it like it is a FACT, but it isn't. It is a made up storyline. It is NOT a fact that "humans may evolve into being made of energy". It is not a fact that ANYTHING could evolve into being made of energy. At BEST it is speculation, an interesting idea.

Evolution is a science. Man becoming energy is fiction.

You seem to have a problem integrating the two.

Just like a submarine in Verne's novel is science, a giant octopus is fiction... HOWEVER, for some one like Clara both things were fictional. Science proved that submarines could be real.

Can science create a teleporter like Brundle's or a reactor like Phil's? Sure.

Can science create a teleporter that turns a man into a fly or a reactor that allows energy to retain conciousness? Doubtful.

So again, I ask, if you believe that Valiant was the world outside our window, and Phil somehow stumbled upon technology/theory that is from one million years from now, then you must believe that there is a chance my father, who works in the nucelar facility, could somehow do the same thing. Do you? Can my father become Solar?

No, because Phil Seleski and his reactor don't exist in the real world.

That's the thing you're having a problem grasping, the idea that Phil could have created something that was thousands or maybe even millions of years ahead of its time.

That's what scientists do, in both the real world and science fiction (specially science fiction that's supposed to take place in a contemporary setting.

Imagine how different The Fly would have been if it had taken place in the future where teleporters are a given. It wouldn't have had the same kind of dramatic effect).

[ManofTheAtom]

BTW, if a physicist (who knows much more than I do) were to tell me that there is some possible theoretical basis for Phil turning into a sentient being made of, and able to control energy, I would be happy to admit that I am wrong, and that it is more (as you put it) science fiction than fantasy. But I would like to know how it would occur, and what the theory is behind it that would allow such a conversion.

Chris

Again, your problem is in integrating the two, science and fiction.

In Back to the Future (another science fiction story set in contemporary times), you had a car that was a time machine.

That does NOT mean that ALL cars can travel through time (just like Phil's reactor turning him into a being of energy doesn't mean all reactors can do that).

BTTF 1 and 3 did a great job of integrating science and fiction into the machine.

In 1 the "fictional" side of the machine (the flux capacitor) needed 1.2 jigowatts of electricity to activate. The idea of lighting activating a time machine in a DeLorean is completely fictional.

In 3, the very real side of the machine (the car's engine) needed fuel to run.

In Phil's case, you have a reactor created using technology ahead of its time that can turn a man into energy (which science may very well be able to do someday), and that energy retaining its conciousness (which is completely fictional).

I think that's the 8th or 11th time I say it.

[cjv]

No I'm not.

What I've said, MANY times over now, is that a machine that can turn a man into energy is SCIENCE, and that energy retaining conciousness is FICTION.

and later you say

Right, which is why a machine that can turn someone into energy is possible with science. It may not happen today, but it may happen any time in the future.

That energy being able to retain its conciousness, as I've said many times now, would be fiction... I think that's about the 7th or 10th time I say it.

Yes, but what you ALSO said was the science fiction has a chance to really happen, a possibility (however remote) of being real, where as fantasy doesn't have that possibility or that chance to be real (or something to that effect). Maybey an improbable chance, maybe incredible highly unlikelihood, maybe only with technology from 1 million years in the future, but it has a chance to happen.

And following that, you keep stressing that Valiant/Solar is science fiction - implying that there is a CHANCE it can happen, that a man who is turned into energy could retain consciousness, could retain the ability to think, act, and respond, AS WELL as gaining the ability to control and manipulate all energy.

And I don't think that can happen. Ever. As such, according to your own classification method since I don't think that could ever happen, I classify this as fantasy, not science fiction.

Now, I don't know if I agree with your classification/definition of science fiction versus fantasy, but you apparently do. So for simplicity I am sticking with it. And as such, if you consider science fiction as stories/plots that are in the realm of possibility, that I have to say Solar is NOT in the realm of possibility.

Phil Seleski created using today's technology something that may not exist for another 500 or even one million years, same way in the 80's Seth Brundle in the Fly created a teleporter, which may not exist for another 500 years.

Mota, please - you state things like this as if it is FACT. It is not, it is a story. IN THE STORY a man created a teleportation machine. It doens't mean it could really happen, now, 500 years from now, or 1 million years from now.

IN THE STORY Seth Brundle created a teleportation machine. Doesn't mean it will ever really be able to happen, now, or one million years from now. IN THE STORY PHil created some interesting reactor. Doesn't mean it could ever really happen now, or one million years from now.

Just because their technology was "futuristic", for lack of a better term, it doesn't mean that these two scientists couldn't have created it.

IN THE STORY the created it. Not in real life. We don't have someone who has created a teleportation machine any more than we have someone who created a Seleski reactor any more than we have someone who created a warp drive.

You seem to be implying that JUST BECAUSE a story is written in the present day, and something fantastic happens in that story, that suddenly it might become possible, that there is a chance that it could be real, that it could really happen.

Then, regarding my father becoming Solar:

I never said he would. Phil Seleski created a "futuristic" machine, or discovered a new science... both arguments have been made.

But you apparently believe this "fururistic machine", this "new science" is entirely possible to be real, and as such, it could be done. So I ask again, do you think this could really happen? My father discovers a new technology that builds a reactor. Let's just leave it at that and forget him becoming Solar-dad for the time being.

Could my father, a scientist working at a nuclear lab, "discover and invent", right now, the same kind of reactor Phil built?

Evolution is a science. Man becoming energy is fiction.

You seem to have a problem integrating the two.

I have no problem integrating the two, IN THE CONCEPT OF FICTION, IN A NON-REAL SETTING where we don't confuse reality with fiction.

You seem to have a problem differentiating between real science and fiction. It appears that just because something is written with a hint of science, in a modern world backdrop, all of a sudden you assume it is completely possible (albeit possibly improbable), when in reality it may not be.

So I ask again, do you think the scenario in Solar could really happen, right now? Is it possible?

Can science create a teleporter like Brundle's or a reactor like Phil's? Sure.

Umm...if they can, why haven't they?

Because we don't KNOW if they can. You may assume the technology might be available at some point, but we don't know. It is speculation. It is...(wait for it) fiction. A teleporter like Brundle's and a reactor like Phil's are fiction - they aren't real.

We have no way of knowing if it might become possible someday. All we can do is base our idea of the potential on current scientific understanding, current knowledge, and current technology. You are making the ASSUMPTION that this technology somehow may be available at some point, and for the sake of the story, one inventor/scientist just happened to stumble upon the secret of the technology. But that is an ASSUMPTION - we don't know if it will become possible or not.

Can science create a teleporter that turns a man into a fly or a reactor that allows energy to retain conciousness? Doubtful.

Can science, right now, create a teleporter or a Seleski reactor? No. So that aspect of the story is fictional as well.

No, because Phil Seleski and his reactor don't exist in the real world.

That's the thing you're having a problem grasping, the idea that Phil could have created something that was thousands or maybe even millions of years ahead of its time.

That's what scientists do, in both the real world and science fiction (specially science fiction that's supposed to take place in a contemporary setting.

Imagine how different The Fly would have been if it had taken place in the future where teleporters are a given. It wouldn't have had the same kind of dramatic effect).

Again, you are ignoring the fact that the ENTIRE story of the Fly is fictional. It didn't really happen.

I have no problem accepting that within the confines of the Valiant Universe Phil Seleski may have stumbled upon a new technology/scientific revelation. I have no problem accepting that within the confines of the Fly movie, Seth Brundle somehow discovered how to build a teleporting machine.

However, I draw a line at the actions within a fictional storyline and the real world. It's called suspension of disbelief. You accept some implausible or unlikely events/actions/results/discoveries/scenarios to make the overall storyline more enjoyable. However, once you get back into the "real world" the disbelief comes back, and you realize how unlikely or implausible or unrealistic something may be.

You seem to have a problem putting the disbelief back up. You watch the Fly, and within the movie accept that a man can invent a teleporting machine, but when you are leaving the movie theater you continue to believe that inventing a teleporting machine is realistic, possible, or could be done right now, in our time, as described in the movie (it's just that merging the human and fly would not be able to occur). You say I have a hard time merging science and fiction. From what you type, it appears you have a hard time separating fiction from reality!

Fiction: A Seleski reactor could be built.

Fiction: A teleporting machine could be built.

Fiction: A man could be turned into living, conscious energy.

Fiction: A man could be merged with a fly.

Those are ALL fiction. Science fiction, yes, but still fiction.

You seemingly state with absolute certainty that the technology to build a Seleski reactor, to build a teleporter, WILL exist. How do you know this?
Because it was in a comic book? Or in a movie? Seriously, how do you know?

Let me ask you this. Hitchikers Guide to the Galaxy is science fiction. Can the improbability drive really be built?


Now I am off to trap mosquitoes (because, you see, I *am* a scientist, as is my father) and won't be back until tomorrow. I wait with baited breath for the response, as well as any other comments people may have.

Chris

PS - I wonder how long till our posts end up in topic oblivion?

[cjv]

Again, your problem is in integrating the two, science and fiction.

I have no problem accepting the concept within the storyline.

But you seem to want to drag it OUT of the story, and suddenly say it could happen in real life because it is "science".

And that is just wrong.

Within the Valiant Universe, it's a great story. A fun story to read. A well written, interesting story.

But that's all it is. A story. A fictional tale of a man who invented a reactor that turned him into an energy being. Once I finish the story, I move back to the real world. You seem to be stuck in the fiction.

And since we can NOT at this point in time develop a reactor like Phil did, the ENTIRE concept is fictional, not just the idea of Phil retaining consciousness as an energy being. True, some of the aspects of the fictional story are based on reality, and real science, but that doesn't suddenly mean that someone could REALLY invent a Seleski Reactor.

Chris

[ManofTheAtom]

Yes, but what you ALSO said was the science fiction has a chance to really happen, a possibility (however remote) of being real, where as fantasy doesn't have that possibility or that chance to be real (or something to that effect). Maybey an improbable chance, maybe incredible highly unlikelihood, maybe only with technology from 1 million years in the future, but it has a chance to happen.

Right... but again you're having trouble integrating and separating the two.

A submarine like in Verne's novel was science fiction until it became science fact. The giant octopus will always remain fictional.

In Phil's case, the reactor may become fact, the the energy retaining its conciousness will remain fictional (unless it doesn't. I can't see into the futrue, can you? Can you say without a doubt that a million years from now humans may not evolve into energy or create machines that can turn them into energy? Who knows...

A machine that can turn humans into energy is possible and likely, while energy retaining conciousness is possible but extremely unlikely).

And following that, you keep stressing that Valiant/Solar is science fiction - implying that there is a CHANCE it can happen, that a man who is turned into energy could retain consciousness, could retain the ability to think, act, and respond, AS WELL as gaining the ability to control and manipulate all energy.

Never said that. This is you having a hard time integrating science with fiction.

There's a likelihood of a machine that can turn humans into energy will exist, while there's an unikelihood of that energy retaining its conciousness.

And I don't think that can happen. Ever. As such, according to your own classification method since I don't think that could ever happen, I classify this as fantasy, not science fiction.

Humans retaining their conciousness after being turned into energy may never happen, but a machine that can turn them into energy might.

Now, I don't know if I agree with your classification/definition of science fiction versus fantasy, but you apparently do. So for simplicity I am sticking with it. And as such, if you consider science fiction as stories/plots that are in the realm of possibility, that I have to say Solar is NOT in the realm of possibility.

But his machine is...

Mota, please - you state things like this as if it is FACT. It is not, it is a story. IN THE STORY a man created a teleportation machine. It doens't mean it could really happen, now, 500 years from now, or 1 million years from now.

It may happen. Just because you think it can't doesn't mean it won't.

There's a line in Vanilla Sky I really like that goes something along the lines of "they laughed at Jules Verne too".

How was that line revelant to the movie? Well, the movie was about a guy that who goes into cryogenic freeze and lives in a virtual reality simulation that began at a certain point in his life.

That's crazy, right? That kind of science can't exist... but then again, they laughed at Jules Verne too, and the stuff in his books was considered impossible when it first came out until science made it possible.

Machines like Phil's reactor (that can turn man into energy), Brundle's pods (which can teleport people across vast distances), and even the one seen in Vanilla Sky (a cryo freezer with a virtual reality simulator) may not exist NOW, but they may exist in the future. You can't dismiss it with a "it will never happen!". That only makes you sound like the people who read Verne's work when it came out that said that man would never walk on the moon or that man would never explore the ocean in a vessel.

Science proved those people wrong, and someday it will prove you wrong too.

IN THE STORY Seth Brundle created a teleportation machine. Doesn't mean it will ever really be able to happen, now, or one million years from now. IN THE STORY PHil created some interesting reactor. Doesn't mean it could ever really happen now, or one million years from now.

A teleporter and a machine that can turn man into energy may happen someday. What it's unlikely to happen is the teleporter turning a man into a fly and the energy retaining its conciousness.

The former is science, the latter is fiction.

IN THE STORY the created it. Not in real life. We don't have someone who has created a teleportation machine any more than we have someone who created a Seleski reactor any more than we have someone who created a warp drive.

No, we don't because that science doesn't exist yet. It doesn't mean it never will!!!

Geez, can you really be this thick headed?

Verne's story had men who shot themselves to the moon in a bullet... that didn't mean that travel to the moon was impossible. Within a 100 years of the publication of From the Earth to the Moon (1865 to 1969) man actually walked on the moon.

How can you say what will and won't exist 100 years from now?

PAY ATTENTION.

Teleporters may very well exist in the future, THAT is science.

Men becoming giant flies during an accient in one WON'T happen, THAT is fiction.

Try to integrate the two concepts so you can understand them.

You seem to be implying that JUST BECAUSE a story is written in the present day, and something fantastic happens in that story, that suddenly it might become possible, that there is a chance that it could be real, that it could really happen.

Over the last two centuries we've seen real science emmulate science fiction, from submarines and "bullet-shaped" capsules (like the ones NASA used in the 60's and 70's) found in Verne's novels, those things can be made real... what CAN'T be made real is a giant octopus or the moon having an atmosphere.

In Phil's case, a reactor that can turn a man into energy can become scientific fact someday. What's unlikely, however, is that enegy retaining its conciousness.

But you apparently believe this "fururistic machine", this "new science" is entirely possible to be real, and as such, it could be done. So I ask again, do you think this could really happen? My father discovers a new technology that builds a reactor. Let's just leave it at that and forget him becoming Solar-dad for the time being.

Is he smart enough?

Could my father, a scientist working at a nuclear lab, "discover and invent", right now, the same kind of reactor Phil built?

Again, is he smart enough?

It took smart people to create the bullet-shaped capsultes NASA used, just like it took smart people to create cel-phones.

I have no problem integrating the two, IN THE CONCEPT OF FICTION, IN A NON-REAL SETTING where we don't confuse reality with fiction.

You seem to have a problem differentiating between real science and fiction. It appears that just because something is written with a hint of science, in a modern world backdrop, all of a sudden you assume it is completely possible (albeit possibly improbable), when in reality it may not be.

So it's you opinion that since Jules Verne wrote the fictional From the Earth to the Moon that in reality man will never walk on the moon?

Is it your opinion that since Star Trek, a fictional show, used cel-phone-like communicators that such things will never exist in the real world?

The point here you're missing is that just because an idea or concept appears in a science fiction story it doesn't mean that it can't become science fact given enough time.

For God's sake, the computers we're using to communicate right now used to belong to the realm of science fiction 50-60 years ago!

Imagine it was 1945 and you told someone about the multimedia computer you're using right now, or explain to them what the Internet is. They'd tell you that you're crazy, that you probably read it in a comic book.

You're dismissing what science can achieve given enough time and resources.

So I ask again, do you think the scenario in Solar could really happen, right now? Is it possible?

No, because that science doesn't exist NOW... in the fictional world Seleski lived in it did because he created it, just like in Brundle's world he created his pod.

Umm...if they can, why haven't they?

Because science is, for lack of a better way to put it, a learned trade. It takes time to become smart enough to create stuff, be it a cel-phone, a car, a turbine, color TV, an IPod, or a computer.

The first TV wasn't in color. The first computer wasn't compact. The first car didn't have a cup holder!

These things take time.

It took science 104 years to go from Verne's From the Earth To The Moon to actually putting someone on it.

Who is to say that sometime in the next 40 to 400 years a scientist won't create a teleporter?

Because we don't KNOW if they can. You may assume the technology might be available at some point, but we don't know. It is speculation. It is...(wait for it) fiction. A teleporter like Brundle's and a reactor like Phil's are fiction - they aren't real.

Just because they're not real NOW it doesn't mean they will NEVER be real.

They used to laugh at Jules Verne too, did you know...

We have no way of knowing if it might become possible someday.

So we should dismiss the possibility and say it can't be done.

If it can't be done NOW it can NEVER be done, that's what you're saying...

All we can do is base our idea of the potential on current scientific understanding, current knowledge, and current technology. You are making the ASSUMPTION that this technology somehow may be available at some point, and for the sake of the story, one inventor/scientist just happened to stumble upon the secret of the technology. But that is an ASSUMPTION - we don't know if it will become possible or not.

If we did that then we'd be making the same wrong assumption that the people who laughed at Verne did.

Can science, right now, create a teleporter or a Seleski reactor? No. So that aspect of the story is fictional as well.

Now it is... 40, 400, 4,000 years from now, it may not be, just like 104 years after Verne's novel was published man walked on the moon.

Again, you are ignoring the fact that the ENTIRE story of the Fly is fictional. It didn't really happen.

I have no problem accepting that within the confines of the Valiant Universe Phil Seleski may have stumbled upon a new technology/scientific revelation. I have no problem accepting that within the confines of the Fly movie, Seth Brundle somehow discovered how to build a teleporting machine.

However, I draw a line at the actions within a fictional storyline and the real world. It's called suspension of disbelief. You accept some implausible or unlikely events/actions/results/discoveries/scenarios to make the overall storyline more enjoyable. However, once you get back into the "real world" the disbelief comes back, and you realize how unlikely or implausible or unrealistic something may be.

Right... energy retaining human conciousness is unlikely, just like the moon having an atmosphere is unlikely.

A machine that can turn a man into energy maybe possible someday, just like 104 years after Verne's novel was published man walked on the moon.

You seem to have a problem putting the disbelief back up. You watch the Fly, and within the movie accept that a man can invent a teleporting machine, but when you are leaving the movie theater you continue to believe that inventing a teleporting machine is realistic, possible, or could be done right now, in our time, as described in the movie (it's just that merging the human and fly would not be able to occur). You say I have a hard time merging science and fiction. From what you type, it appears you have a hard time separating fiction from reality!

I never said it could be done in our time, in fact I've said the opposite MANY times.

Go back and re-read my posts.

What I said was that in the real world machines like that may not exist until the future, while in Seth's and Phil's world they did exist because they invented them.

Fiction: A Seleski reactor could be built.

Fiction: A teleporting machine could be built.

So it's fiction that man will walk on the moon? Are you one of those people who think it was done in a sound stage, is that it?

Fiction: A man could be turned into living, conscious energy.

Fiction: A man could be merged with a fly.

That's fictional, yes, just like the moon having oxygen is fictional and a giant octopus is fictional. That doesn't mean that submarines or bullet-shaped capsules aren't real.

Those are ALL fiction. Science fiction, yes, but still fiction.

Only the last two items in your list are fictional. The first two may become real someday, just like 104 years after Verne's novel was published bullet-shaped capsules became real.

You seemingly state with absolute certainty that the technology to build a Seleski reactor, to build a teleporter, WILL exist. How do you know this? Because it was in a comic book? Or in a movie? Seriously, how do you know?

Nope, I know it because for the last two hundred years science has emmulated science fiction, from emmulating Verne's novel to emmulating Star Trek's communicators.

Science may one day choose to emmulate teleporters.

Let me ask you this. Hitchikers Guide to the Galaxy is science fiction. Can the improbability drive really be built?

Having only seen the movie I may not be the best person to judge that, but I can say that while something like that may be unlikely (i.e. turning people into straw), I will say that other ideas from the movie, mainly the robot and the giant computer, are more likely than the drive.

[ManofTheAtom]

I have no problem accepting the concept within the storyline.

But you seem to want to drag it OUT of the story, and suddenly say it could happen in real life because it is "science".

And that is just wrong.

Within the Valiant Universe, it's a great story. A fun story to read. A well written, interesting story.

But that's all it is. A story. A fictional tale of a man who invented a reactor that turned him into an energy being. Once I finish the story, I move back to the real world. You seem to be stuck in the fiction.

And since we can NOT at this point in time develop a reactor like Phil did, the ENTIRE concept is fictional, not just the idea of Phil retaining consciousness as an energy being. True, some of the aspects of the fictional story are based on reality, and real science, but that doesn't suddenly mean that someone could REALLY invent a Seleski Reactor.

Chris

What you're syaing is that if it happens in a science fiction story it can't EVER happen in real life.

I hear they laughed at Jules Verne. That guy thought that people would explore the ocean inside vehicles called submarines and that people would shoot themselves to the moon inside bullet-shaped capsules.

What a loon!! Those things will NEVER exist.

[myron]

[ManofTheAtom]

[Dr. Solar]

You made MOTA hungry, Myron!

[fury143]

ManofTheAtom you are right that is what I really meant. Perhaps that's why I like that show so much.

[ManofTheAtom]

ManofTheAtom you are right that is what I really meant. Perhaps that's why I like that show so much.

I like it too. It's very well made.

[cjv]

A quick response before I go turn in paperwork

This appears to be the crux of your argument.

Teleporters may very well exist in the future, THAT is science.

Men becoming giant flies during an accient in one WON'T happen, THAT is fiction.

and

No, we don't because that science doesn't exist yet. It doesn't mean it never will!!!

Because you say something "may" exist in the future, suddenly it becomes viable science. You are assuming something WILL exist in the future, which then allows you to say it is science, not fiction.

We have no idea what may or may not, exist in the future. Just because YOU think something may be possible doesn't make it "science". Just because something is explained using science terminology doesn't suddenly make it "science".

Yes, it may exist in the future. But it may not, which is a possibility you just ignore. To assume the former and suddenly call it realistic science is arbitrary. I am sure that in the 1900 society thought there might be any number of advanced achievements by the year 2000. Some of those may have come true, some didn't. At the time, however, because there was no way of knowing which ones MIGHT be true and which ones WOULDN'T come to pass, they were all ficitonal.

If there is some hard science that exists NOW that indicates there is a significant prpossibility that something like COULD exist in the future, then I will concede the the point. If you have knowledge that I do not have (and I will be the first to admit my knowledge of physics, quantum theory, particle physics is lacking) please fill me it. Tell me the current theories that indicate that a teleportation machine is possible.

As far as I know, there is no knowledge and technology that exists now that indicates that there is a significant possibility that a teleporting machine could be invented. Again, if I am wrong, please correct me from existing scientific knowledge - not movies, not tv shows, no ficitional books.

And given that we can't even determine what kind of reactor Phil built, to assume that there is a significant possibilty that it may exist (ie, that a machine may exist that could instantly convert matter to energy, without an explosion) seems to me to be a stretch.

One could just as easily say that given the current state of genetic technology, it may be possible in the future to add fly genes into the human genome, creating a human/fly hybrid....oooh, it's science!

My point is that if you make the claim that something is science (ie, possible in theory, not just a fictional account) you have to back it up with HARD FACTs. Not just "I think it may be possible". Not just "It sounds plausible". You need to back it up with current scientific thinking, experimental results, technological advances, in order to justify saying that it may be possible. Otherwise you can say just about ANYTHING "may be" possible in 1 million years in the future with advanced technology. As I said before, that is a cop out.

Chris

[cjv]

I have no problem accepting the concept within the storyline.

But you seem to want to drag it OUT of the story, and suddenly say it could happen in real life because it is "science".

And that is just wrong.

Within the Valiant Universe, it's a great story. A fun story to read. A well written, interesting story.

But that's all it is. A story. A fictional tale of a man who invented a reactor that turned him into an energy being. Once I finish the story, I move back to the real world. You seem to be stuck in the fiction.

And since we can NOT at this point in time develop a reactor like Phil did, the ENTIRE concept is fictional, not just the idea of Phil retaining consciousness as an energy being. True, some of the aspects of the fictional story are based on reality, and real science, but that doesn't suddenly mean that someone could REALLY invent a Seleski Reactor.

Chris

What you're syaing is that if it happens in a science fiction story it can't EVER happen in real life.

No, what I am saying is at our point in time it is all but impossible to know what may happen, and what won't happen down the road a bit. As such, until it does happen (or some discovery/technology suddenly changes existing scientific thought to increase the possibility of it happening) than it is fiction. Once it does happen (or scientific theory changes) then it is no longer fiction.

Chris

[cjv]

Teleporters may very well exist in the future, THAT is science.

Men becoming giant flies during an accient in one WON'T happen, THAT is fiction.

No, just because something "MAY" exist, doesn't make it science. You need more than a hypothetical "may exist". You need support in current scientific theory to suddenly change something for a hypothetical possibility to "science".

Chris

[cjv]

So it's you opinion that since Jules Verne wrote the fictional From the Earth to the Moon that in reality man will never walk on the moon?

Is it your opinion that since Star Trek, a fictional show, used cel-phone-like communicators that such things will never exist in the real world?

The point here you're missing is that just because an idea or concept appears in a science fiction story it doesn't mean that it can't become science fact given enough time.

No, I understand that perfectly well. However, we don't KNOW what will become scientific fact given enough time, and since we don't, we shouldn't assume one way or another UNLESS there is existing scientific thought to support it.

The point YOU are missing is that just because something sounds like it MAY be plausible doesn't suddenly make it science. You need more than "hey, that sounds cool, I think it might work".

You're dismissing what science can achieve given enough time and resources.

Not at all. I have never said that Phil's machine CAN'T EXIST. (Although it may appear that I said that, was I was actually referring to was Phil's ability to retain consciousness...which I think we both agree is all but impossible.) But unlike you I don't make the assumption that it WILL exist - you do. That is an assumption that, IMO, is not valid unless there is something to back it up. And simply saying "we don't know what it possible" does not back it up. Heck, "we don't know what may be possible in the future" could also support ANYTHING.

So I ask again, do you think the scenario in Solar could really happen, right now? Is it possible?

No, because that science doesn't exist NOW... in the fictional world Seleski lived in it did because he created it, just like in Brundle's world he created his pod.

Umm...if they can, why haven't they?

Because science is, for lack of a better way to put it, a learned trade. It takes time to become smart enough to create stuff, be it a cel-phone, a car, a turbine, color TV, an IPod, or a computer.

Okay,. so if it can't happen now, why do you keep bringing up the point that The Fly and Solar were written in "our" universe, in our own time? If by you own admission you think it can't happen now, then that is completely irrelevant, isn't it?

Who is to say that sometime in the next 40 to 400 years a scientist won't create a teleporter?

They may. They may not. It may be possible, it may be impossible. But without more information to support one side or the other, you can't just arbitrarilly say "it IS possible in the future" and suddenly turn it into "real science".

So we should dismiss the possibility and say it can't be done.

I have never said dismiss the possibility. It is possibility that drive science. Someone looking for a way to do something. Someone looking for an answer to a question that we may not have even asked yet!

But we can't ASSUME the possibility that it will be done. Heck, why do you assume that a reactor like Phils could exist, but someone can't retain consciousness in energy form? Why do you assume that a teleporter can be built, but you can't hybridize a fly and a human? You are picking and choosing what "possiblities" you choose to believe and which ones you reject.

If it can't be done NOW it can NEVER be done, that's what you're saying...

No, what I am saying is that if it can't be done now, and we have no current accepted scientific thought that indicates it CAN be done, we can't make the assumption that it will be done.

Which is what you are doing. A teleporter sounds need, it sounds like it "should" be possible, so you have decided that it will be possible, and thus it is science, not fiction.

A machine that can turn a man into energy maybe possible someday, just like 104 years after Verne's novel was published man walked on the moon.

Sure, it MAY be possible. But we don't know, so we can't assume it will be possible. Right now it is fictional, just like at the time Verne wrote his books, the idea of man walking on the moon was fictional.

I never said it could be done in our time, in fact I've said the opposite MANY times.

You kept bringing up the fact that Valiant and The Fly were "in our own time", in "our backyard" as it were. The only reason that seemed relevant to me was assuming that it could be done now, in our own time. If that wasn't your intent, I withdraw that aspect of the argument.

So it's fiction that man will walk on the moon? Are you one of those people who think it was done in a sound stage, is that it?

At the time is was written, yes, it was fiction. Since then, technology and science have changed, and it is now fact.

At the time The Fly was filmed, it was/is fiction. Technology MAY change in the future, and teleportation may become fact, but it isn't now. And current scientific knowledge and technology don't lead to any indication that is going to chance.

Only the last two items in your list are fictional. The first two may become real someday, just like 104 years after Verne's novel was published bullet-shaped capsules became real.

Yes, they MAY become real, they may not. We don't know. As such, until we know one way or another, they are just fictional account.

You seemingly state with absolute certainty that the technology to build a Seleski reactor, to build a teleporter, WILL exist. How do you know this? Because it was in a comic book? Or in a movie? Seriously, how do you know?

Nope, I know it because for the last two hundred years science has emmulated science fiction, from emmulating Verne's novel to emmulating Star Trek's communicators.

Science may one day choose to emmulate teleporters.

So anything that appears in a science fiction movie or in book will someday become possible?

You are assuming just because something sounds cool that:

a) theory (even knowledge we don't know yet) will allow for such a technology to exist
b) that such a technology will not only be theoretically possible, but also be exist in reality
c) the reason for these advances is not because of scientific theory, but rather because "science emulate science ficiton"?

Let me ask you this. Hitchikers Guide to the Galaxy is science fiction. Can the improbability drive really be built?

Having only seen the movie I may not be the best person to judge that, but I can say that while something like that may be unlikely (i.e. turning people into straw), I will say that other ideas from the movie, mainly the robot and the giant computer, are more likely than the drive.

But I am not asking about those. I am asking about the improbability drive. According to your previous statement science emulates science fiction, which is how you "know" that teleportation will be possible. Well, the improbability drive is science fiction. So I guess science will emulate that as well, and someday we will have an improbability drive? According to what you said before, that is the case.

Me, I choose to believe that scientific advances and discovery of new technolgoy allow the development of new ideas, new gadgets, new theories - SOME of which may have been previously written about in a science fiction genre. But until there is some solid evidence that something is possible, it is still fiction.

Chris

[ManofTheAtom]

At this point, the only possible answer would be

I'm Henry the Eighth, I am!
Henry the Eighth I am! I am!
I got married to the widow next door,
She's been married seven times before.
Every one was an Henry
She wouldn't have a Willie or a Sam
NO SAM!
I'm her eighth old man named Henry
Henry the Eighth I am.
Next verse, same as the first.

Meaning that by now I'd only be repeating myself, and no matter what I'd say it would go into one "ear" and out the other...

[Blood of Heroes]

I'm down with MOTA, are you?