A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Amateur Astronomy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

'Journey to the Far Side of the Sun' (1969)



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old February 1st 13, 05:11 PM posted to rec.arts.movies.past-films,sci.astro.amateur
RichA[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 553
Default 'Journey to the Far Side of the Sun' (1969)

On Jan 26, 12:09*pm, calvin wrote:
On Jan 26, 11:07*am, moviePig wrote:









On Jan 26, 10:43*am, calvin wrote:
On Jan 26, 10:18*am, "Steven L." wrote:
Arthur C. Clarke had written a sci-fi story about a technician working
in some nuclear power plant gets put through a space warp and gets reversed.


One thing Clarke wrote about (which the "Journey" movie ignored) was
that the technician developed malnutrition despite eating a regular
diet. *That's because many nutrients have a chirality (right
handedness/left-handedness) about them: *An amino acid or a vitamin
molecule have a reversed mirror image too.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chirality_%28chemistry%29


And the technician's metabolism, having reversed molecules, couldn't
bind to the nutrients he was eating. *So they had to procure specially
designed reversed amino acids and reversed vitamin molecules to keep the
technician alive--at great expense.
...


The movie ignored that possibility, but it did not ignore
electrical polarity. *It just smoothed it over by saying
that the two planets were not reversed in that respect.


To me, though, the movie's interest was in the situation.
It also seemed to me that there was no need for the
astronauts to swap places again. *The movie should
have just ended with them enjoying reconciliation
with their wives.


The title seems puzzling. *"The far side of the Sun"? *I go there
annually...


Aside from your joke, the sci-fi premise that there could be
a hidden planet opposite the earth in its orbit does not
stand up to celestial mechanics. *Even if the earth's orbit
was perfectly circular, there could not be a planet in stable
orbit 180 degrees away from it. *Another planet would have
to be at what are known as Lagrange Points, 60 degrees
in front of or behind the earth.

I believe that a few very small objects have been found at these
positions in the earth's orbit, and much larger objects in
Jupiter and Saturn's satellite orbits, as well as in Jupiter's
orbit of the sun, the so-called Trojan asteroids.


I dream of the day when a good scifi is produced (in this century,
that is) that does not stray from science fact or possibility and is
still entertaining.
  #2  
Old February 1st 13, 11:56 PM posted to rec.arts.movies.past-films,sci.astro.amateur
Paul Schlyter[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 19
Default 'Journey to the Far Side of the Sun' (1969)

On Fri, 1 Feb 2013 08:11:49 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote:
I dream of the day when a good scifi is produced (in this century,
that is) that does not stray from science fact or possibility and is
still entertaining.


In any kind of fiction, including science fiction, you ARE allowed to
stray from fact. That's the very purpose of fiction....
  #3  
Old February 2nd 13, 12:38 AM posted to rec.arts.movies.past-films,sci.astro.amateur
Howard Brazee
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 261
Default 'Journey to the Far Side of the Sun' (1969)

On Fri, 1 Feb 2013 08:11:49 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote:

I dream of the day when a good scifi is produced (in this century,
that is) that does not stray from science fact or possibility and is
still entertaining.


Is that possible?

--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."

- James Madison
  #4  
Old February 2nd 13, 04:35 AM posted to rec.arts.movies.past-films,sci.astro.amateur
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 58
Default 'Journey to the Far Side of the Sun' (1969)

"Paul Schlyter" wrote in message
.. .

On Fri, 1 Feb 2013 08:11:49 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote:
I dream of the day when a good scifi is produced (in this century,
that is) that does not stray from science fact or possibility and is
still entertaining.


In any kind of fiction, including science fiction, you ARE allowed to
stray from fact. That's the very purpose of fiction....
==========================================
Asimov's "positronic brain" for his robots was an unnecessary fantasy
for an artificially intelligent computer, his real fiction was about the
sociological changes that a new technology can bring about. "Beam me up,
Scotty" is about a cell phone before there were cell phones, aliens like
Klingons are merely human beings with funny heads.
Michael Crighton's Jurassic dinosaurs have to be a danger to human beings
or there is no story, the sci part is the extraction of DNA from the gut of
flies in amber that has ingested the animal's blood. In all fiction human
beings and sociological change are the subject, only thinly disguised by
anthropomorphic animals in "Watership Down" or "Animal Farm".
Heinlein's rolling roads are feasible and his "Moon is a Harsh Mistress" is
about rebellion, throwing rocks at the Earth is merely the weapon. Bad
fiction is the physically impossible, such as the hero outrunning the
fireball from the explosion or a geostationary satellite positioned over the
North Pole, or people firing beams of light at each other at subsonic speeds
and then, for heavens sake, missing the target.
I agree with RichA's assessment, sci-fi has to be plausible without
violating known laws or else it is fantasy. On the other hand a well written
fantasy can be entertaining and/or instructive if it demonstrates a paradox,
such as time travel.

-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway.
When I get my O.B.E. I'll be an earlobe.

  #5  
Old February 2nd 13, 10:48 PM posted to rec.arts.movies.past-films,sci.astro.amateur
RichA[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 553
Default 'Journey to the Far Side of the Sun' (1969)

On Feb 1, 10:35*pm, "Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway"
wrote:
"Paul Schlyter" *wrote in message

.. .

On Fri, 1 Feb 2013 08:11:49 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote:

I dream of the day when a good scifi is produced (in this century,
that is) that does not stray from science fact or possibility and is
still entertaining.


In any kind of fiction, including science fiction, you ARE allowed to
stray from fact. That's the very purpose of fiction....
==========================================
Asimov's "positronic brain" for his robots was an unnecessary fantasy
for an artificially intelligent computer, his real fiction was about the
sociological changes that a new technology can bring about. "Beam me up,
Scotty" is about a cell phone before there were cell phones, aliens like
Klingons are merely human beings with funny heads.
Michael Crighton's *Jurassic dinosaurs have to be a danger to human beings
or there is no story, the sci part is the extraction of DNA from the gut of
flies in amber that has ingested the animal's blood. In all fiction human
beings and sociological change are the subject, only thinly disguised by
anthropomorphic animals in *"Watership Down" or "Animal Farm".
Heinlein's rolling roads are feasible and his "Moon is a Harsh Mistress" is
about rebellion, throwing rocks at the Earth is merely the weapon. *Bad
fiction is the physically impossible, such as the hero outrunning the
fireball from the explosion or a geostationary satellite positioned over the
North Pole, or people firing beams of light at each other at subsonic speeds
and then, for heavens sake, missing the target.
I agree with RichA's assessment, sci-fi has to be plausible without
violating known laws or else it is fantasy.


Really good scifi was sidelined by fantasy a couple decades ago.
Hollywood's belief is that the average person is incapable of even
listening to scientifically-plausible ideas. For every person who is
fascinated by (for example) the Greene books on quantum universes,
there are 100,000 who want "Star Wars."
  #6  
Old February 2nd 13, 10:50 PM posted to rec.arts.movies.past-films,sci.astro.amateur
RichA[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 553
Default 'Journey to the Far Side of the Sun' (1969)

On Feb 1, 5:56*pm, Paul Schlyter wrote:
On Fri, 1 Feb 2013 08:11:49 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote:

I dream of the day when a good scifi is produced (in this century,
that is) that does not stray from science fact or possibility and is
still entertaining.


In any kind of fiction, including science fiction, you ARE allowed to
stray from fact. That's the very purpose of fiction....


There are three key areas utilizable when doing a science fiction
story:
1. Real, proven science.
2. Speculative science based on reasonable assumption.
3. Pure fantasy.

Hollywood uses 1 and 3, but could still do good stories if only using
1 & 2.
  #7  
Old February 3rd 13, 01:05 AM posted to rec.arts.movies.past-films,sci.astro.amateur
Howard Brazee
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 261
Default 'Journey to the Far Side of the Sun' (1969)

On Sat, 2 Feb 2013 13:48:21 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote:

Really good scifi was sidelined by fantasy a couple decades ago.
Hollywood's belief is that the average person is incapable of even
listening to scientifically-plausible ideas. For every person who is
fascinated by (for example) the Greene books on quantum universes,
there are 100,000 who want "Star Wars."



We see that a lot in Hollywood movies that have nothing to do with SF.
But the problem is worse with SF when the movie makers don't know
science (and probably don't read).

--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."

- James Madison
  #8  
Old February 3rd 13, 02:56 AM posted to rec.arts.movies.past-films,sci.astro.amateur
Quadibloc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,018
Default 'Journey to the Far Side of the Sun' (1969)

On Feb 1, 3:56*pm, Paul Schlyter wrote:
On Fri, 1 Feb 2013 08:11:49 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote:

I dream of the day when a good scifi is produced (in this century,
that is) that does not stray from science fact or possibility and is
still entertaining.


In any kind of fiction, including science fiction, you ARE allowed to
stray from fact. That's the very purpose of fiction....


Yes, but his sense ought to be quite understandable: "that does not
stray too far from science fact or possibility"... after all, the
typical romance novel manages without having to bring in werewolves or
zombies or vampires as characters (although, come to think of it,
romance novels that *do* do this are having an upsurge of popularity
at present)... so what's wrong with hoping that hard SF might make an
appearance in Hollywood?

The thing is, though, that when hard SF does make it to the silver
screen, it often isn't recognized as hard SF.

Some of the James Bond movies almost qualify. What about _Marooned_?
Colossus: The Forbin Project, although a bit optimistic about progress
in Artificial Intelligence, could be considered pretty close to hard
SF as well.

The thing is, though, that generally speaking, since intelligent life
on Mars is now ruled out by what we know of the planet, what the
general public thinks of when it thinks of science fiction involves
one of two elements that belong to the soft SF category: time travel
or FTL spaceflight.

So the genre was defined by H. G. Wells - science fiction is basically
bounded by The Time Machine and The War of the Worlds. (Wells didn't
use FTL, of course, but as noted, our new understanding of our solar
system has made FTL an apparent necessity for encountering intelligent
aliens.)

Jules Verne, on the other hand, has stayed in the "period piece" area,
his works being pillaged for steampunk.

John Savard
  #9  
Old February 3rd 13, 02:58 AM posted to rec.arts.movies.past-films,sci.astro.amateur
Quadibloc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,018
Default 'Journey to the Far Side of the Sun' (1969)

On Feb 2, 2:50*pm, RichA wrote:

Hollywood uses 1 and 3, but could still do good stories if only using
1 & 2.


This is true. Of course, since being a producer, director, or
screenwriter takes years of study in its own right, it's hardly
astonishing that such people seldom have the qualifications needed to
tell the difference between 2 and 3.

John Savard
  #10  
Old February 3rd 13, 03:05 AM posted to rec.arts.movies.past-films,sci.astro.amateur
Quadibloc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,018
Default 'Journey to the Far Side of the Sun' (1969)

On Feb 1, 8:35*pm, "Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway"
wrote:

Asimov's "positronic brain" for his robots was an unnecessary fantasy
for an artificially intelligent computer,


Yes, that's true.

And Star Trek filed the serial numbers off, and had "duotronic"
computers.

But, ironically, although there is no reason to think that computers
would work faster using positrons to carry information, integrated
circuits _did_ use _holes_ instead of electrons to carry information.

This had the benefit, in PMOS circuits, that gates could be more
tightly packed - although they were slower than the ones in NMOS
circuits which used electrons. So pocket calculators, which could be
slow, but had to be complex, were made from PMOS chips back in the
'seventies.

Today, though, CMOS circuitry, which, unlike either NMOS or PMOS
circuitry, doesn't require current to flow through it (except for
unavoidable leakage) when in a stable state, only when switching, is
used in the most advanced microelectronics as the lower power
consumption allows circuits to be made at a smaller feature size,
which would be far too hot if made from NMOS (even though that would
allow them to run faster, if they could be made to run, in fact they
would be too hot to run at all).

So, if "positronics" could refer to holes as positive charge carriers,
then in real life "duotronics" of a sort _has_ won out.

John Savard
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
the Sun as a ball (was Origin of Skt heli 'sun' anybody?) Yusuf B Gursey Astronomy Misc 0 February 2nd 10 10:52 PM
Journey to the Far Side of the Sun Coming Back In Print Andre Lieven[_3_] History 0 April 11th 08 07:18 AM
China To Build World's First 'Artificial Sun' Energy Device Art Deco Misc 2 January 26th 06 03:37 AM
The 'midnight sun' - how's it work? suave harv UK Astronomy 11 September 1st 05 01:35 PM
MX516 and ST7-ME Side to side Jaime Alemany CCD Imaging 0 February 3rd 04 09:07 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:34 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.