Origin of Harada - discussion

[mavros]

From Solar #3

Dialogue by Doctor Solar.

"Here he (Phil) is a few years later, the principal theologist behind the fusion reactor being built at the Edgewater nuclear facility"

...

So Phil was a theologist and the reactor was an anti-matter fusion reactor with a plasma core.

Theologist in that context isn't meant to be taken literally.

[ManofTheAtom]

Sorry, that should be THEORIST, not THEOLOGIST

Theorist as in a scientist who came up with theories...

[cjv]

Sorry, that should be THEORIST, not THEOLOGIST

Theorist as in a scientist who came up with theories...

Pretty much most scientists do that. They have hypothesis which they test. Calling Phil a theorist doesn't mean much, other than possibly implying he only works on theories, leaving the actual experimentation to other people.

Chris

[mavros]

Ah.

That makes much more sense.

[ManofTheAtom]

Sorry, that should be THEORIST, not THEOLOGIST

Theorist as in a scientist who came up with theories...

Pretty much most scientists do that. They have hypothesis which they test. Calling Phil a theorist doesn't mean much, other than possibly implying he only works on theories, leaving the actual experimentation to other people.

Chris

I think that the proper context here would be that Phil was the kind of theorist that pursued his hypothesis through actual experimentation, like with the reactor.

The theory behind it could have as easilly been "using anti-matter, we can turn matter into energy (or viceversa)"...

[ManofTheAtom]

Ah.

That makes much more sense.

heh

[cjv]

"So he (Solar) doesn't understand that this reactor's anti-proton "pilot light" mixes just enough anti-matter into the plasma to rip the stuffing out of positive-polarity beings, like us."

So Phil was a theologist and the reactor was an anti-matter fusion reactor with a plasma core.

And I would leave it to a physicist to determine if
a) if the sentence above is anything more than gobbleygook pseudo-science speak
b) if the sentence above makes any sense in the context of a anti-matter fusion reactor
c) if an anti-matter fusion reactor could potentially convert a person into energy
d) if an anti-matter fusion reactor could even exist

Lot's of ifs there.

And, on top of it all - we don't know if Phil's reactor is supposed to convert matter into energy. WE know it did (at least it did it to Phil), but was that it's intended purpose? It could easily be that
a) there was a design flaw in Phil's "anti-matter fusion reactor" plans, and the resulting machine had the effect of converting phil to energy (but converting matter to energy wasn't it's intended purpose)
b) it was a comic book "device" - ie, while trying to sound scientific, they were really just creating a means to the end - a way to turn Phil into Solar, not trying to address the creation of a machine to convert matter into energy
c) or they tried to be as scientific as possible, and theorized and intentionally "designed" a machine to turn matter into energy.

Persionally, my money is on "b".

Chris

[cjv]

Sorry, that should be THEORIST, not THEOLOGIST

Theorist as in a scientist who came up with theories...

Pretty much most scientists do that. They have hypothesis which they test. Calling Phil a theorist doesn't mean much, other than possibly implying he only works on theories, leaving the actual experimentation to other people.

Chris

I think that the proper context here would be that Phil was the kind of theorist that pursued his hypothesis through actual experimentation, like with the reactor.

And as I said, you have pretty much described any scientist.

Chris

[ManofTheAtom]

"So he (Solar) doesn't understand that this reactor's anti-proton "pilot light" mixes just enough anti-matter into the plasma to rip the stuffing out of positive-polarity beings, like us."

So Phil was a theologist and the reactor was an anti-matter fusion reactor with a plasma core.

And I would leave it to a physicist to determine if
a) if the sentence above is anything more than gobbleygook pseudo-science speak
b) if the sentence above makes any sense in the context of a anti-matter fusion reactor
c) if an anti-matter fusion reactor could potentially convert a person into energy
d) if an anti-matter fusion reactor could even exist

Lot's of ifs there.

And, on top of it all - we don't know if Phil's reactor is supposed to convert matter into energy. WE know it did (at least it did it to Phil), but was that it's intended purpose? It could easily be that
a) there was a design flaw in Phil's "anti-matter fusion reactor" plans, and the resulting machine had the effect of converting phil to energy (but converting matter to energy wasn't it's intended purpose)
b) it was a comic book "device" - ie, while trying to sound scientific, they were really just creating a means to the end - a way to turn Phil into Solar, not trying to address the creation of a machine to convert matter into energy
c) or they tried to be as scientific as possible, and theorized and intentionally "designed" a machine to turn matter into energy.

Persionally, my money is on "b".

Chris

A is EXTREMELY unlikely.

It's like saying that Homer tried to repair the toaster and instead created a time travel machine...

B implies that the writer was just throwing scientific-sounding words together.

C works off the idea that the writer came up with a reactor that used anti-matter and the formula E=mc2 to reach his intended goal.

[ManofTheAtom]

Sorry, that should be THEORIST, not THEOLOGIST

Theorist as in a scientist who came up with theories...

Pretty much most scientists do that. They have hypothesis which they test. Calling Phil a theorist doesn't mean much, other than possibly implying he only works on theories, leaving the actual experimentation to other people.

Chris

I think that the proper context here would be that Phil was the kind of theorist that pursued his hypothesis through actual experimentation, like with the reactor.

And as I said, you have pretty much described any scientist.

Chris

Then what's the point of contention here?

As a theorist, Phil theorized that his machine could turn matter into energy.

One thing you musn't loose sight of is that he created the machine inspired by the comics he read as a child, so saying that he intended to make a machine that could convert matter into energy isn't that far fetched. After all, that's what the machine in the original Doctor Solar comics did.

[cjv]

And, on top of it all - we don't know if Phil's reactor is supposed to convert matter into energy. WE know it did (at least it did it to Phil), but was that it's intended purpose? It could easily be that
a) there was a design flaw in Phil's "anti-matter fusion reactor" plans, and the resulting machine had the effect of converting phil to energy (but converting matter to energy wasn't it's intended purpose)
b) it was a comic book "device" - ie, while trying to sound scientific, they were really just creating a means to the end - a way to turn Phil into Solar, not trying to address the creation of a machine to convert matter into energy
c) or they tried to be as scientific as possible, and theorized and intentionally "designed" a machine to turn matter into energy.

Persionally, my money is on "b".

Chris

A is EXTREMELY unlikely.

It's like saying that Homer tried to repair the toaster and instead created a time travel machine...[/quote]

In the real world is unlikely - in the comic book world, who knows.

B implies that the writer was just throwing scientific-sounding words together.

Yup, although potentially with a little more research than possible saying "Phil built an mutation photon quark reactor".

C works off the idea that the writer came up with a reactor that used anti-matter and the formula E=mc2 to reach his intended goal.

Which, when you think about it, is simply a slightly more complex "B" scenario - a tool to turn Phil into Solar. The writer (not being a physicist) took what knowledge he had of physics, possibly with some research on anti-matter containment, and devised what sounds like a plausible scenario for phil to turn into Solar.

Still doesn't mean it is possible in the real world - now, or 1000 years in the future.

Chris

[cjv]

deleted - maybe will post later

[ManofTheAtom]

And, on top of it all - we don't know if Phil's reactor is supposed to convert matter into energy. WE know it did (at least it did it to Phil), but was that it's intended purpose? It could easily be that
a) there was a design flaw in Phil's "anti-matter fusion reactor" plans, and the resulting machine had the effect of converting phil to energy (but converting matter to energy wasn't it's intended purpose)
b) it was a comic book "device" - ie, while trying to sound scientific, they were really just creating a means to the end - a way to turn Phil into Solar, not trying to address the creation of a machine to convert matter into energy
c) or they tried to be as scientific as possible, and theorized and intentionally "designed" a machine to turn matter into energy.

Persionally, my money is on "b".

Chris

A is EXTREMELY unlikely.

It's like saying that Homer tried to repair the toaster and instead created a time travel machine...

In the real world is unlikely - in the comic book world, who knows.

B implies that the writer was just throwing scientific-sounding words together.

Yup, although potentially with a little more research than possible saying "Phil built an mutation photon quark reactor".

C works off the idea that the writer came up with a reactor that used anti-matter and the formula E=mc2 to reach his intended goal.

Which, when you think about it, is simply a slightly more complex "B" scenario - a tool to turn Phil into Solar. The writer (not being a physicist) took what knowledge he had of physics, possibly with some research on anti-matter containment, and devised what sounds like a plausible scenario for phil to turn into Solar.

Still doesn't mean it is possible in the real world - now, or 1000 years in the future.

Chris[/quote]

That last point is where we disagree on.

You don't know what will be possible 1000 years from now, just like the people who laughed at Verne didn't know that 104 years later man would reach the moon on bullet-shaped capsules.

Like I said before, science has been known to emulate fiction.

It's possible that sometime in the previous 40 years a man could have been born that will one day, inspired by Star Trek, build a teleporter (which is a machine that transforms matter into energy and back), and if in the next 40 years that man doesn't do it then maybe someone else will using his research. And if they don't do it, then someone else might, and so on and so forth.

How many of today's inventions (like computers, cell phones, IPods, or many others) were inspired by fiction? I'm sure there's quite a few.

[cjv]

Which, when you think about it, is simply a slightly more complex "B" scenario - a tool to turn Phil into Solar. The writer (not being a physicist) took what knowledge he had of physics, possibly with some research on anti-matter containment, and devised what sounds like a plausible scenario for phil to turn into Solar.

Still doesn't mean it is possible in the real world - now, or 1000 years in the future.

Chris

That last point is where we disagree on.

You don't know what will be possible 1000 years from now, just like the people who laughed at Verne didn't know that 104 years later man would reach the moon on bullet-shaped capsules.[/quote]

Right, we don't know what will be possible, all we know is right now. And right now, any machine/reactor that can convert matter to energy without an explosion and 100% efficiency is...fiction.

Like I said before, science has been known to emulate fiction.

Actually, I don't think this is true at all.

I think it is a combination of things.

1) There are SO many "science fiction" themes and books written, there are bound to be some that end up looking somewhat realistic.

2) Good, really good science fiction writers may look at current technology and speculate about the future and what might actually happen (still doesn't mean they are right, though!)

3) Good science fiction may look at a potential future problem and attempt to solve it, just as science will/would attempt to solve it in the future. On occasion, those two solution may converge.

It's possible that sometime in the previous 40 years a man could have been born that will one day, inspired by Star Trek, build a teleporter (which is a machine that transforms matter into energy and back), and if in the next 40 years that man doesn't do it then maybe someone else will using his research. And if they don't do it, then someone else might, and so on and so forth.

The question is what came first - the chicken or the egg. Did some future person, inspired by Star Trek, decide to invent the "teleporter", or in the future, is there some issue regarding long distance travel (an issue that Gene Rodenberry accurately envisioned) and the easiest solution to that is some sort of teleporter.

I am inclined to think more of the latter than the former, but perhaps it is a combination. Howver, I don't think some future scientist sits around and says "hey, a teleporter like one on star trek is cool, I think I will invent it".

If you look back the past 250 years, I am willing to bet that for every "accurate" prediction, there are between 10 and 100 that aren't accurate. So it seems to be to say that fiction guides science ignores the overwhelming cases where it doesn't.

How many of today's inventions (like computers, cell phones, IPods, or many others) were inspired by fiction? I'm sure there's quite a few.

Were they inspired by fiction, or did they simply attempt to solve a problem that some past fiction writer accurately depicted? In my mind there is a difference, I don't know if there is in your mind.

Chris

[Chiclo]

MOTA: What is this?
CJV: It is a reactor that transmutes matter, by changing atoms on a subatomic level. By transferring electrons, neutrons, and protons between atoms, I can transmute one element to another!
MOTA: What? That technology doesn't exist! It is far to advanced!
CJV: It exists now, you saw my lab, you saw the machine. And it works!

There is my science fiction. Sounds somewhat realistic, somewhat plausible. So, according to you, is my science fiction suddenly "real", or could be "real"? Just becuase the comic book includes some scientific jargon, with the comment that it is ahead of are time?

It sounds realistic and plausible because it's real.

That's the practical use of a particle accelerator.

I tried to build one when I was a foolish teenager. I blew 4 fuses at once when I fired it off. I never did quite figure out if I had everything aligned properly.

[cjv]

MOTA: What is this?
CJV: It is a reactor that transmutes matter, by changing atoms on a subatomic level. By transferring electrons, neutrons, and protons between atoms, I can transmute one element to another!
MOTA: What? That technology doesn't exist! It is far to advanced!
CJV: It exists now, you saw my lab, you saw the machine. And it works!

There is my science fiction. Sounds somewhat realistic, somewhat plausible. So, according to you, is my science fiction suddenly "real", or could be "real"? Just becuase the comic book includes some scientific jargon, with the comment that it is ahead of are time?

It sounds realistic and plausible because it's real.

That's the practical use of a particle accelerator.

I tried to build one when I was a foolish teenager. I blew 4 fuses at once when I fired it off. I never did quite figure out if I had everything aligned properly.

D'oh! My science fiction is real!

Can they really do that? Or is it just theoretically possible?

Chris

[Chiclo]

MOTA: What is this?
CJV: It is a reactor that transmutes matter, by changing atoms on a subatomic level. By transferring electrons, neutrons, and protons between atoms, I can transmute one element to another!
MOTA: What? That technology doesn't exist! It is far to advanced!
CJV: It exists now, you saw my lab, you saw the machine. And it works!

There is my science fiction. Sounds somewhat realistic, somewhat plausible. So, according to you, is my science fiction suddenly "real", or could be "real"? Just becuase the comic book includes some scientific jargon, with the comment that it is ahead of are time?

It sounds realistic and plausible because it's real.

That's the practical use of a particle accelerator.

I tried to build one when I was a foolish teenager. I blew 4 fuses at once when I fired it off. I never did quite figure out if I had everything aligned properly.

D'oh! My science fiction is real!

Can they really do that? Or is it just theoretically possible?

Chris

That is not just real world science, it's real world engineering. They can absolutely do that. Lead to gold, that sort of thing. It's just damned expensive to turn lead to gold. It's not just theory, it's fait accompli.

[ManofTheAtom]

MOTA: What is this?
CJV: It is a reactor that transmutes matter, by changing atoms on a subatomic level. By transferring electrons, neutrons, and protons between atoms, I can transmute one element to another!
MOTA: What? That technology doesn't exist! It is far to advanced!
CJV: It exists now, you saw my lab, you saw the machine. And it works!

There is my science fiction. Sounds somewhat realistic, somewhat plausible. So, according to you, is my science fiction suddenly "real", or could be "real"? Just becuase the comic book includes some scientific jargon, with the comment that it is ahead of are time?

It sounds realistic and plausible because it's real.

That's the practical use of a particle accelerator.

I tried to build one when I was a foolish teenager. I blew 4 fuses at once when I fired it off. I never did quite figure out if I had everything aligned properly.

D'oh! My science fiction is real!

Can they really do that? Or is it just theoretically possible?

Chris

That is not just real world science, it's real world engineering. They can absolutely do that. Lead to gold, that sort of thing. It's just damned expensive to turn lead to gold. It's not just theory, it's fait accompli.

Alchemy...

[Chiclo]

MOTA: What is this?
CJV: It is a reactor that transmutes matter, by changing atoms on a subatomic level. By transferring electrons, neutrons, and protons between atoms, I can transmute one element to another!
MOTA: What? That technology doesn't exist! It is far to advanced!
CJV: It exists now, you saw my lab, you saw the machine. And it works!

There is my science fiction. Sounds somewhat realistic, somewhat plausible. So, according to you, is my science fiction suddenly "real", or could be "real"? Just becuase the comic book includes some scientific jargon, with the comment that it is ahead of are time?

It sounds realistic and plausible because it's real.

That's the practical use of a particle accelerator.

I tried to build one when I was a foolish teenager. I blew 4 fuses at once when I fired it off. I never did quite figure out if I had everything aligned properly.

D'oh! My science fiction is real!

Can they really do that? Or is it just theoretically possible?

Chris

That is not just real world science, it's real world engineering. They can absolutely do that. Lead to gold, that sort of thing. It's just damned expensive to turn lead to gold. It's not just theory, it's fait accompli.

Alchemy...

Particle acceleration.

[xodacia81]

Interesting. But, I think what is being overlooked here is that although this discussion has become a matter of science fact versus fiction, the point of the machine, according to Seleski when he spoke to himself outside the core of the reactor, was "a dream machine". Imagination and determination plus some badly misplaced particles=The VALIANT universe.

[ManofTheAtom]

Interesting. But, I think what is being overlooked here is that although this discussion has become a matter of science fact versus fiction, the point of the machine, according to Seleski when he spoke to himself outside the core of the reactor, was "a dream machine". Imagination and determination plus some badly misplaced particles=The VALIANT universe.

Could be, yeah... but it could also just have been a philosophical way to refer to it, no?

[cjv]

Interesting. But, I think what is being overlooked here is that although this discussion has become a matter of science fact versus fiction, the point of the machine, according to Seleski when he spoke to himself outside the core of the reactor, was "a dream machine". Imagination and determination plus some badly misplaced particles=The VALIANT universe.

This has been discussed before.

MY contention is that "dream machine" was not literal. It was a reference to what the machine eventually allowed Phil to do/become. It wasn't "designed" to turn him into Solar, but it did (which was his dream), so it was a dream machine.

Taking it literally gives a whole new conotation to Phil, the reactor, and the Valiant Universe. Doesn't mean it CAN'T be literal, just not how I took it.

Chris

[mavros]

Yeah. It's a metaphor.

Both Phil AND Erica would not have dreamt being Dr. Solar.

[xodacia81]

Sorry about the confusion. Didn't mean it literally as a "dream machine" but rather that it was that moment when he realized what it represented that his dreams-once empowered to make it so-began to be fulfilled as well as shattered.

[DJSpecter]

I know this is off topic, and I apologize, but I was finally able to locate a copy of the new story and I had a couple of thoughts:
I like the comparison between Kris and Harada's wife. They were chosen, they didn't really have a choice.
I love that Harada's wife is a cutter, but I'm not buying how deep she cut herself and then just walk away.
The blind seer bit is a bit cliche, but interesting. Her powers seem to more closely resemble those of 20-20 and maybe some other minor powers. It raises an interesting question: can there be a harbinger with just popping power?
And I do have to agree with the original comments on the thread, it is too short and it really does not answer anything. It was nice to see the thumper reference though.