Battlestar Wiki - User contributions [en]

Talk:Propulsion (TOS)/Archive 1

2007-03-29T13:31:21Z

3DMaster: /* TECR link */

== Article Need ==

Since the [[FTL]] article is primarily about the more-detailed aspects of lightspeed travel in the RDM series, a separate article, albeit brief, seemed appropriate to do here for TOS. I didn't want to mix up the two, and text here would be lost to the bulk of the FTL article if merged. Thus, I kept it separate with this article, which also helps contrast them. If anyone has the shot of Old-School ''Galactica'' moving away (her stern to us) at lightspeed, it would be good here. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 14:08, 12 June 2006 (CDT)

== Scientific accuracy ==

Should there maybe a note stating how nonsensical the show's reliance on sublight propulsion is? They regularly visit new solar systems and there are even a few references to them moving to another ''galaxy''. All that is impossible at such low speeds. --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 10:37, 11 October 2006 (CDT)
: Sure. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] 10:46, 11 October 2006 (CDT)
:Please do. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 11:14, 11 October 2006 (CDT)

== Lost Planet Ref ==
Should any mention be made of the discussion that Lucifer and Baltar have regarding lightspeed in [[Lost Planet of the Gods, Part I#Noteworthy_Dialogue|Lost Planet, I]]? --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 10:58, 16 January 2007 (CST)
:The part about ''Galactica'' being only as fast as the other ships, is already in the 2nd paragraph, but can be cited with that episode. Aside from that it's one the few direct references to lightspeed, so I'd say yes. --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 11:34, 16 January 2007 (CST)

LOL. We made the same edits at the same time. --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 12:03, 16 January 2007 (CST)
:I pulled the duplicate quote, but I think everything else can stay. Now we've got an episode cite on the slowly moving second paragraph, and the unsubstantiated is now "rarely mentioned". I still don't understand how the Cylons didn't easily catch up with them whenever they wanted if they had lightspeed and the Colonials couldn't... whatever. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 12:05, 16 January 2007 (CST)

== FTL for real ==

Well, that's a rather useless piece of text, isn't it? Also highly inaccurate. The talk of "going to lightspeed" is not going FTL at all; it's simply the fastest speed the Galactica reach using conventional speed; and it's no doubt the reference to how fast the ions that move the ship forward are accelerated out of the engines.

The FTL technology used in TOS is very close approximation of the following: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alderson_drive Alderson Drive]. One can infer this rather easily. The Galactica (and Cylons) indeed have no active FTL drive, but they do jump from solar system to solar system. Once reaching such a system, they invariably send out patrols. These patrols are quickly out of communications range. These patrols also don't go looking for hostiles, since they mostly know the Cylons are behind them. What remains; is that the vipers are looking for something; and not simply planets. There seems to only one logical conclusion; they are looking for the same something that brought them there: Star's Langrange point. These are places where two stars gravity and other emissions form a bridge, a tunnel, that can be accessed with the right technology. Once found, the fleet takes the best of any such points founds, and goes through it.

This fits with all that we've observed in TOS - the only sad thing is, that it was never explicitly shown, or explained - very possibly due to lack of budget. It also requires a complete ground up rewrite of the article, making clear distinctions between STL propulsion (the ion drive) and the FTL propulsion (the Alderson drive) and dropping just about all of the disparaging remarks, and requiring one to have an open mind, and look a bit deeper than the superficial.

It's late here, and I'm wondering how much a complete and total rewrite would go over, with remarks like the above in these discussion pages. {{unsigned|3DMaster}}

:Hi, 3DMaster. Keep in mind that, like ''Star Wars'' before it, the Original Series was a space ''fantasy.''

::No, it wasn't. Not even close. Apart from both having carrier ships and fighters, they have nothing in common, and BSG is most definitely not space fantasy.

:Scientific accuracy in the series' single season was never a priority.
::That's where you're only partially right. When one looks at BSG, one gets the impression there are two camps in the production offices; one who strives as much to scientific accuracy as possible, and one side, partially by budgetary and deadline reasons, just wants to get the filming done. There are an extreme amount of scenes and events that show a continuous scientific paradigm, especially the FTL technology used, interspersed with some really iffy stuff.

:Many, many contributors of the [[Battlestar Wiki:Original Series Article Development Project|Original Series Article Project]] have combed through the episodes and documented an extensive amount of technology and terminology from the show, and, using the tools of [[BW:CJ#Derived Content|derived content]], have tried to piece together some semblance of the science of the show. However, while certain levels of speculation that is supported by the series' events, conversations and the like are allowed on this wiki (which strives to use canonical works only), we don't try to "make up" or associate "our" technologies or theories to fill in the gaps of the series' storylines ''per se''. That's known as "[[BW:FANW|fanwanking]]", and it is a form of fan fiction--none of which Battlestar Wiki allows. If you've seen something in the series that suggests that the technology used was directly based on technologies you know ''as well as'' an official source (that's cast, crew or producers from the old series) that supports your speculation, then do be bold and rewrite the article as you see fit.
::Then they haven't dug very deep. But I can already see it; this place is basically: TOS is stupid, dumb stuff, so we don't have to look to deep, and don't bother with anything but a little logic to certain consistent ways things are done in the show, and nobody actually intimately knowledgeable about the show, and knows the show is asked to contribute, is asked for opinions, or any information about TOS written as such on the net has been looked up, in fact, the very least that could have been done, if you count logical deduction as idle speculation and fanwanking, would be to put in links to TOS technology sites, but even they aren't there.

:Battlestar Wiki articles that speculate intentionally limit their descriptions when little or no canonical information exists, which is why you found the article as it was. Keep in mind that this article contrasts with the far-more-scientifically-based Re-imagined Series article parent, [[Science in the Re-imagined Series]], which grounds its content much more on both observation as well as cast, crew and production sources (and all that's because the series [[Ron D. Moore|executive producer]] wanted to avoid [[Naturalistic science fiction|many old SF clichés and gimmicks]]. Original Series sourcing is much harder as you can guess, so tread lightly but have fun. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 18:02, 25 March 2007 (CDT)
::LOL. That's a good one. The more scientifically based re-imagined series? You obviously have got NO idea of science do you? TOS is scientifically FAR more consistent than the new series. The new series is a mess, let me point a few things out:

::1. The computer technology required to produce a sentient species of robots is FAR in excess of what WE posses; and the nBSG computer technology is LESS than ours.

:::Not correct, actually. Before the Cylon War, the Colonials of the "nBSG" actually had much better technology than deployed in the Miniseries and on. As established in the Miniseries, the Colonials discarded much of their technology since the Cylons were able to turn it against them. (Doral mentions much of this during his presentation to the press tour on ''Galactica'' within the first hour.) It was only 40 years later when Colonials began better embracing pre-War technologies, wireless networks, and such. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] 18:35, 27 March 2007 (CDT)

::::And reducing to such a tiny level that they could never do the devastatingly massive calculations required to calculate such a thing as a fold space jump generator. Also, lowering your computer capabilities is ridiculous. That wouldn't make it more difficult to hack by Cylons, but EASIER. What you need to build are better firewalls, not lower your computers computational power, and thereby making it easier to slip into holes by the opposition, it's now wonder they're so easily hacked. --[[User:3DMaster|3DMaster]] 05:30, 29 March 2007 (CDT)

::2. The technology required to build their jump drive: enormous computer technology the colonials don't have, forcefield generation, plasma control physics, high-end lasers, as well as higher dimension understanding of physics. Some of it, we posses, the nBSG folks don't. All of it, those so called gimmicky scifi stuff RDM didn't want to use, or can be used to build them. For them to have the technology to build that jump drive, but not being able to build a single operational laser or energy weapon, is ridiculous in the extreme.

::: Actually, various scientific journals have questioned the practicality of beam weapons, particularly as a replacement of projectile weapons. Additionally, the original series never once uses forcefields (the Prison Barge didn't have any for their cells, as seen in "War of the Gods" and "Baltar's Escape"). The only known instance of energy shields ever being mentioned is by Commander Cain in "Living Legend, Part II". -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] 18:35, 27 March 2007 (CDT)

:::: Whether or not beam weapons are practical, has no bearing on the fact that that is but a tiny fraction of the tech required to have a functioning jump drive. Also, those scientists are utterly stupid and clueless. You will run out of ammunition, you got a good enough power source, you'll hardly ever, and in case of renewable power sources like zero point energy, you'll never run out of energy to fire those weapons. Finally, generating a magnetic field around a ship with a powerful enough engine; like matter/anti-matter drive that deflects small meteors and such is easy to do; we already can if we wanted to build such a drive. Against such a field, (what Star Trek incidentally calls navigational shields) projectiles are completely useless: they'll be deflect/bent around the ship. --[[User:3DMaster|3DMaster]] 05:30, 29 March 2007 (CDT)

::A little example; those laser torpedoes, those gimmicky scifi weapons the TOS vipers fired; they were conceived in the early eighties, and we have them operational in the lab now. Not quite efficient enough yet to actually use, but it'll get there. Yet the guys with the FTL drive, can't do it. Makes one laugh one's ass off.--[[User:3DMaster|3DMaster]] 18:41, 25 March 2007 (CDT)

::: Actually, there are many TOS fans that disagree with you. For instance, Susan Paxton would [http://www.geocities.com/sjpaxton/newpage2.html seriously disagree with you on your assertion on there being two camps in the series], including many science fiction writers (Asimov one of them) railed against the series for its various scientific inaccuracies. Also, "laser torpedoes" are an oxymoron I rather not discuss. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] 18:35, 27 March 2007 (CDT)

:::: She probably wasn't aware of them. TOS is completely, utterly, and totally consistently written with the Galactica using those jump corridors; in fact, the much decried episode Gun on Ice Planet Zero, makes perfect sense. If that lagrange point they need to jump through, is always close by that planet, and the gun is built to cover it, there is indeed no way to avoid that gun and planet. Also, just because something is called a laser, doesn't mean it's a laser. Often thinks are named upon older conventions and the name sticks, even if strictly logically speaking the name isn't correct. Hence "Turbo Lasers" in SW/TOS:BSG not being actual "lasers" but more a stream of plasma. Laser torpedoes in that, are an extremely concentrated burst of plasma; who after a short time will overcome its own compression... rather explosively. And we actually have those weapons in the lab, as said; we have it as a solid fuel that is superheated into a plasma, contained in a cannister; it acts and behaves just like TOS BSGs laser torpedoes. --[[User:3DMaster|3DMaster]] 05:30, 29 March 2007 (CDT)

== TECR link ==

I am removing the link to tecr.com because of the following:

# The article is not cited with references from the series. It is made up of various theories that attempt to explain STL and FTL travel in the series.
# There is consistent reference to "ion" drives for STL travel, none of which were mentioned in the original series.
# There is no on-screen evidence or the dialogue of the use of hyperspace or jump corridors.

Also, per [[BW:CJ|the Citation Jihad]], the Galactica tech manual has been identified as fanon and should not be referred to as a valid source of information. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] 18:35, 27 March 2007 (CDT)

:LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Yo, Specarian? What did I wrote you in that piece on your talk page? In short: we don't want ANYTHING here that might, possibly, indicate that TOS is more what dogma demands it to be, aka ridiculous peace of space fantasy. We will only look at direct quotes, we don't want a single shred of logic, just total illogic and deeper look at the bleeding obvious at how TOS was set, nothing, nada zilch, while we happily keep on slamming TOS. About double standards: say, Joe, are going to delete the entire nBSG propulsion page too? After all, nowhere, anywhere, in the show was there ever a single mention of Super strings, Membranes, wormholes, or folding space. Just jump, and spin. Ugh! This place is ridiculous. Ban me, remove me, I don't care.

:: We're not into "slamming" TOS, as you so term it. We're here to find out facts, simply put. We're not here to promote an "anti-TOS agenda"/"pro-RDM agenda"... apparently the fact that you are so quick to jump to that conclusion begins leading me to believe that you're not actually interested in helping, but in fact are here only to stir up trouble.

:: Also, for the record, I am a TOS fan, and supported both Richard Hatch's and DeSanto/Singer's continuation efforts. I happen love both series, but that doesn't mean that we are blind to the flaws in both series. (And since you clearly believe that we are very RDM-biased, please note that we have indicated flaws within the series, notably the [[Season two timeline discontinuity]] and "[[A Measure of Salvation]]".) -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] 19:57, 27 March 2007 (CDT)

:::No of course not, it just looks that way. nBSG propulsion pages is failed with baseless speculation that is never, not once, not even close being mentioned on the show. Facts? Think not. But with that it's all just fine. TOS propulsion pages, is nothing but a bunch of thinly-veiled insults; and when one would like to actually do more than just an outside link, it's not allowed to, because hey, nBSG may have baseless speculation all over the place, oBSG may not, not even in a link to the outside. You know, it's probably just me, but an encyclopedia might actually want to have something for people who want to know about other than insults, even if it's just a link to an outside source; so they can look onward to more and really verse them in everything about the show, including more than nothing but superficial looking - like, you know, the whole baseless folding and super string thing on the nBSG propulsion page. I wonder what the reaction of nBSG fans is, if I set up a TOS BSG wiki where the only information on nBSG is insults and slams on how ridiculous it is, that such utter primitive culture is without SciFi gimmicks is capable of producing an FTL drive for which one requires all those SciFi gimmicks to get it to work; thus it's nothing but useless space fantasy.

:::Anyone who claims this place isn't measuring with two standards is dishonest to the extreme.

:::And no, I'm not here just to stir up trouble; unless "just trouble" is defined as: looking with utter disbelief at nothing but thinly veiled insults on the TOS propulsion page, and wanting to add something more substantial, more honest, and counter to the going paradigm is considered "just trouble" --[[User:3DMaster|3DMaster]] 06:31, 28 March 2007 (CDT)

::::I have some issues with the theoretical portion of the page, to be honest. I'll begin spearheading a discussion on what needs to be changed on that page [[Talk:Propulsion in the Re-imagined Series|here]]. However, the present page on original series propulsion is pretty well sourced from comments on the show, unless you have behind-the-scenes information that has additional information on FTL capability in the original series. (Honestly, all the sources I am able to obtain indicate that there was extremely little thought in the scientific aspects of the show, which is apparent with the lack of magnetic boots for the spacesuits and on, as well as the ''Galactica'''s inability to de-pressurize the ship in order to quell a fire.) Also, there was a lot of politicking going on behind the scenes, and the series was so rushed that it didn't have time to develop stories properly, if you'll note the interviews that Susan Paxton did on the story editors, which are listed on [http://geocities.com/sjpaxton/intervie.html this page]. With these interviews, I find it extremely difficult to agree with your assertion that there were "clearly" two camps behind the scenes in terms of scientific accuracy.) -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] 08:57, 28 March 2007 (CDT)

:::::We've never even seen the TOS guys in space suits. And if you say there's a lot of politicking going on, and lots of rushing, you have the multiple camps and people doing things she doesn't know about right there. Like I said above, Classic Galactica is completely consistent with, and only consistent with entering naturally existing jump corridors. And you should read the first note on the TOS propulsion place: 'TOS propulsion was not based in existing science unlike the nBSG.' First, there's no point in mentioning this except for going "Neener, neener, neener, nBSG is better than old one, ha ha!", and second it is false. Exactly what the jump drive is, and how it works has never been explained; for all we know a finger of the Greek gods they worship is in there, and it activates the gods' teleportation abilities.

:::::And no, I don't it's pretty well sourced. It's filled with thinly veiled insults, and also riddled with base assumptions. Nowhere in the series has it ever been said, or even implied that going to "lightspeed" means FTL speeds. In fact, except for that the term was used for FTL hyper jumps in Star Wars, every thing suggests that it is indeed NOT going faster than light. To state categorically that lightspeed means faster than light, as as much a baseless assumption as the corridors in the other site.

:::::Finally; just because you can't have anything except the bare naked facts on the wiki itself, why can't you have links to places that is more that just bare naked, superficial facts, where what's shown on screen is analyzed and a logical conclusion drawn, if necessary with the disclaimer, "Since the TOS for various reasons, both behind scenes and SFX and budget limitations never showed the ship using any kind of FTL, and it was never discussed in-show either, the following site is not absolute fact, but a elaboration on TOS FTL usage." (In fact, just about that entire sentence should be at the top of the page; and give all the possible interpretations of the show. From the bare superficial lightspeed, to something a little deeper, or say nothing at all except that sentence, and then just links to sites which go deeper.) --[[User:3DMaster|3DMaster]] 05:47, 29 March 2007 (CDT)

3DMaster, I support Joe's comments below, without further comments. TOS ''and'' RDM shows are often inconsistent in what they show and explain. This is a wiki on a ''work of fiction'', and our goals here, ultimately, are to (1) document all of it, and if applicable, (2) place the information in some sort of context to understand the story. The second item can be done through citations, plausible speculation and logical deduction, or other official sources. I've read and re-read the entries here, and it is obvious you are fond of one show over another, or more specifically, sensitive to the limited coverage that TOS has here. TOS consists of one 24-episode season. The RDM series is much longer. I was one of many that sparked interest over a year ago into [[Battlestar Wiki:Original Series Article Development Project|substantial improvement and expansion]] on TOS. The results, from many many contributor hours, is what you see here. These contributors were held to the same standards as RDM articles. But there are limits; TOS existed when there wasn't an internet to spread podcasts from cast and crew. Videotapes were just getting started. There wasn't an "official guide" for the show content, and what was documented was in a few old ''Starlog'' magazines. As RDM appeared, the cross-references and comparisons to TOS were inevitable, and, in the case of topics such as [[Pegasus (RDM)]], even needed.

We greatly value criticism on the wiki. Rather than complain about a bias, perhaps it would better for you to actually edit the articles to make their perspective neutral. When it comes to any article, however, less is more. Not all articles can, or should, be expanded more than what the official source material has provided. TOS hasn't many official sources, as such, their articles will not be detailed and may never be, and that is that. If you feel there is some sort of bias to RDM, you are right, but only in that the RDM series is currently airing, is highly successful, and has mounds of data to sort out right now.

:Where does everyone get this idea that nBSG is highly successful? It's getting no more ratings, and in fact recently had an instant of less ratings, than the RERUNS of the WORST, LEAST POPULAR Star Trek series on the SAME CHANNEL. It is as far removed from successful as you can get.--[[User:3DMaster|3DMaster]] 08:31, 29 March 2007 (CDT)

I, for one, however, am not attempting to continue this debate over whether the wiki is "slamming" TOS. I was alive and watching TOS as it first aired before many contributors here were born, and TOS has a special place in my heart, and defend TOS articles with the same zeal as I do RDM articles. Feel free to edit, but note that inaccuracies and unsourced materials will be removed, tirelessly. If you find that we persistently remove or seriously truncate most or all edits you make, perhaps you can review the whys of its removal and determine for yourself whether this wiki is further worth your time. But many contributors have spent hours of their time to make Battlestar Wiki a genuine, non-fan fiction resource, and I find it disingenuous (and rude) for any contributor to mock their efforts. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 07:56, 29 March 2007 (CDT)

:I don't see the point. If you can't even add a link to an outside Battlestar tech manual, you can't do anything. -- [[User:3DMaster|3DMaster]] 08:31, 29 March 2007 (CDT)

Talk:Propulsion in the Re-imagined Series/Archive 1

2007-03-29T11:53:58Z

3DMaster: /* My recent edit */

This article comprises the bulk of the original FTL article and elements from a past larger article version of [[Science in the Re-imagined Series]], broken out for later expansion and page size considerations. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 08:14, 11 October 2006 (CDT)

== capitalization of "jump" ==

Why is the word "jump" capitalized so often? Both as noun and verb. I could barely understand capitalizing the noun, and even then it's not a proper noun. But writing "Jump" as verb doesn't make any sense whatsoever. It boggles my mind and just looks silly. Maybe it's just me and I'm overreacting (because I find it annoying), but I correct it wherever I see it. 
The only reason I can think of is one or two references in the BSG Season 1 Companion where it is written with a capital letter. But I consider that a typo and not some kind of official standard. --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 16:06, 30 October 2006 (CST)

:I am inclined to agree with you, and I also normally correct, erm change, it when I see it. --[[User:CalculatinAvatar|CalculatinAvatar]]([[Special:Contributions/CalculatinAvatar|C]]-[[User talk:CalculatinAvatar|T]]) 17:16, 30 October 2006 (CST)

::I have tended to capitalize it in the psat, but now if I do, it's only as part of the phrase, "FTL Jump." However, it may be a point of emphasis that is not necessary, although the term may not be easily distinctive without proper context when describing the event (A lot of people have taken up my "bad" habits.) --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 17:44, 30 October 2006 (CST)

:The capitalization bugs me as well. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 18:14, 30 October 2006 (CST)

I've rediscovered why I've done this practice: The show captions ''consistently'' capitalize "Jump" when speaking of such in FTL. It makes sense in context for them to differentiate it as it would here. Using lowercase implies a diminutive or generic use, for which this does not apply. It would be best here to use "FTL Jump" and not "Jump" except in dialogue accounts, but I believe we should avoid genericizing this. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 11:50, 9 November 2006 (CST)

:Continuing the discussion from the Hybrid page. I don't see the need to distinguish its uses. It's not like we are talking of characters jumping around a lot. "FTL Jump" might be ok though, even if it still looks weird to me, but "Jump" alone not so much IMHO. So as you said, if people insist on capitalizing it, they should better add the "FTL" . Though I still think it's pointless --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 08:03, 17 November 2006 (CST)

== My recent edit ==
I've removed a large amount of content. Before you revert me I'd like to point out that extensive discussion of wormholes is pointless as no allusion to them is made in the show and I see no reason to make that assumption. Additionally the physics references are a bit clumsy in those sections. On arrival all ships are brought to an arbitray frame of reference (which leads to the removal of the second footnote as it's clearly wrong). Faster than light is no misnomer in terms of physical displacement per unit time (velocity) as opposed to distance travelled per unit time (speed), the latter being compleltely unimportant in the context. "Electromagnetic and centripetal energies" is incorrect as neither term refers to any energy.

I notice in the history the use of "centrifugal" was corrected to "centripetal", stating "centrifugal is a misnomer - centripetal is the correct term". To this person I suggest you look up the definitions of the words centrifugal, centripetal and misnomer. {{unsigned|Niles}}

:Niles, welcome. As the series generally doesn't get into technobabble and tries to base its technology on theory, rather than fantasy or pseudoscience such as "warp drive," I don't see the justification of the edit. Using wormhole theory (as our scientists tell it) to give a ''possible, logical explanation'' of the FTL principles of the show is acceptable speculation per the wiki's [[BW:CJ|citation policy]], under "derived content." The use of FTL in the show supports the wormhole principle in many, many episodes, with few continuity errors. I appreciate your commentary, but rather than deletion of the central premise, it would be better to add dissenting information that supports your view. I will restore the article's original content based on this, but I encourage you to add your dissent in an encyclopedic way, with its supporting sources. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 09:36, 17 November 2006 (CST)

:: Huh, what? Warp drive is neither fantasy, nor pseudoscience. It's a fully realized scientific theory, right down to the math involved. It's existed since 1995. In fact, it's more real that folding space. -- [[User:3DMaster|3DMaster]] 06:53, 29 March 2007 (CDT)

::''''As the series generally doesn't get into technobabble and tries to base its technology on theory, rather than fantasy or pseudoscience such as "warp drive," I don't see the justification of the edit.'''''
The show doesn't "base" its technology on anything, theory or otherwise; it just is and that's precisely the justification for the edit. A possible explanation? Why not include all of them, even the technobabble ones? While the wormhole concept is a possible explanation it is not probable (inconsistency with visual effects) and hence discussion of "possible" theories in this article is extraneous to the factual data it should contain.

'''' it would be better to add dissenting information that supports your view.''''
The article's not a forum for discussion. If you're after half-baked rationalizations of sci-fi technology you watch lesser shows than BSG, the BSG wiki should be held to similar standards, in my opinion. - --[[User:Niles|Niles]] 19:04, 11 December 2006 (CST)

: Hi Niles, welcome to the Wiki. Thank you for your comments, contributions and concerns, though I will firmly suggest that you consider your tone when addressing other contributors. Spencerian is correct in that possible, logical explanation is acceptable speculation per policy; this does not, in any way, discount adding other explanations, as long as they are reasonably proved and cited. I've also gone over the history of the article in question and have found that you've removed a substantial amount of the article, without discussing it ''before'' you did so. While you did implement some great corrections to the article, I firmly believe that simply discussing such a drastic move prior to implementing it would have been beneficial, and may have ended up in further ''developing'' the article (such as adding other ''scientific'' means of FTL deployed in the series) instead of ''reducing'' the article. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] 20:57, 11 December 2006 (CST)

== Discussions regarding theories posted in the article ==

I'm probably opening a can of worms by doing this, but I believe it is necessary. Barring any official word from the producers, or even [[Kevin Grazier]], we should probably remove the "underpinning" theory, or thoroughly revise the piece so as to include ''thorough'' sourcing with information from reputable scientific journals. So let's begin discussing this issue. Thank you. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] 09:03, 28 March 2007 (CDT)
:I agree. I only recently found Grazier's tech blog that speaks about some of this and can be revised. The screen evidence suggests wormhole, but we need Grazier's information to source it. His blog also illuminates content of the [[Computers in the Re-imagined Series]] article, too, and I've been hoping to get time to update/amend that as well. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 10:51, 28 March 2007 (CDT)

:Uh, what does reputable scientific journals have got to do with anything? It's nice that they're scientific, reputable and no doubt nifty; but what a scientist says has no bearing on a tv show. The only ones who can say exactly how jumpdrive works, are the writers/creators/producers of the show. Even than, it should be taken with a grain of salt until it is actually said and shown in-show - that is, if you demand that only facts and nothing but facts about the show are present in the wiki. --[[User:3DMaster|3DMaster]] 06:33, 29 March 2007 (CDT)

Talk:Propulsion in the Re-imagined Series/Archive 1

2007-03-29T11:33:34Z

3DMaster: /* Discussions regarding theories posted in the article */

This article comprises the bulk of the original FTL article and elements from a past larger article version of [[Science in the Re-imagined Series]], broken out for later expansion and page size considerations. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 08:14, 11 October 2006 (CDT)

== capitalization of "jump" ==

Why is the word "jump" capitalized so often? Both as noun and verb. I could barely understand capitalizing the noun, and even then it's not a proper noun. But writing "Jump" as verb doesn't make any sense whatsoever. It boggles my mind and just looks silly. Maybe it's just me and I'm overreacting (because I find it annoying), but I correct it wherever I see it. 
The only reason I can think of is one or two references in the BSG Season 1 Companion where it is written with a capital letter. But I consider that a typo and not some kind of official standard. --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 16:06, 30 October 2006 (CST)

:I am inclined to agree with you, and I also normally correct, erm change, it when I see it. --[[User:CalculatinAvatar|CalculatinAvatar]]([[Special:Contributions/CalculatinAvatar|C]]-[[User talk:CalculatinAvatar|T]]) 17:16, 30 October 2006 (CST)

::I have tended to capitalize it in the psat, but now if I do, it's only as part of the phrase, "FTL Jump." However, it may be a point of emphasis that is not necessary, although the term may not be easily distinctive without proper context when describing the event (A lot of people have taken up my "bad" habits.) --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 17:44, 30 October 2006 (CST)

:The capitalization bugs me as well. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 18:14, 30 October 2006 (CST)

I've rediscovered why I've done this practice: The show captions ''consistently'' capitalize "Jump" when speaking of such in FTL. It makes sense in context for them to differentiate it as it would here. Using lowercase implies a diminutive or generic use, for which this does not apply. It would be best here to use "FTL Jump" and not "Jump" except in dialogue accounts, but I believe we should avoid genericizing this. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 11:50, 9 November 2006 (CST)

:Continuing the discussion from the Hybrid page. I don't see the need to distinguish its uses. It's not like we are talking of characters jumping around a lot. "FTL Jump" might be ok though, even if it still looks weird to me, but "Jump" alone not so much IMHO. So as you said, if people insist on capitalizing it, they should better add the "FTL" . Though I still think it's pointless --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 08:03, 17 November 2006 (CST)

== My recent edit ==
I've removed a large amount of content. Before you revert me I'd like to point out that extensive discussion of wormholes is pointless as no allusion to them is made in the show and I see no reason to make that assumption. Additionally the physics references are a bit clumsy in those sections. On arrival all ships are brought to an arbitray frame of reference (which leads to the removal of the second footnote as it's clearly wrong). Faster than light is no misnomer in terms of physical displacement per unit time (velocity) as opposed to distance travelled per unit time (speed), the latter being compleltely unimportant in the context. "Electromagnetic and centripetal energies" is incorrect as neither term refers to any energy.

I notice in the history the use of "centrifugal" was corrected to "centripetal", stating "centrifugal is a misnomer - centripetal is the correct term". To this person I suggest you look up the definitions of the words centrifugal, centripetal and misnomer. {{unsigned|Niles}}

:Niles, welcome. As the series generally doesn't get into technobabble and tries to base its technology on theory, rather than fantasy or pseudoscience such as "warp drive," I don't see the justification of the edit. Using wormhole theory (as our scientists tell it) to give a ''possible, logical explanation'' of the FTL principles of the show is acceptable speculation per the wiki's [[BW:CJ|citation policy]], under "derived content." The use of FTL in the show supports the wormhole principle in many, many episodes, with few continuity errors. I appreciate your commentary, but rather than deletion of the central premise, it would be better to add dissenting information that supports your view. I will restore the article's original content based on this, but I encourage you to add your dissent in an encyclopedic way, with its supporting sources. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 09:36, 17 November 2006 (CST)

::''''As the series generally doesn't get into technobabble and tries to base its technology on theory, rather than fantasy or pseudoscience such as "warp drive," I don't see the justification of the edit.'''''
The show doesn't "base" its technology on anything, theory or otherwise; it just is and that's precisely the justification for the edit. A possible explanation? Why not include all of them, even the technobabble ones? While the wormhole concept is a possible explanation it is not probable (inconsistency with visual effects) and hence discussion of "possible" theories in this article is extraneous to the factual data it should contain.

'''' it would be better to add dissenting information that supports your view.''''
The article's not a forum for discussion. If you're after half-baked rationalizations of sci-fi technology you watch lesser shows than BSG, the BSG wiki should be held to similar standards, in my opinion. - --[[User:Niles|Niles]] 19:04, 11 December 2006 (CST)

: Hi Niles, welcome to the Wiki. Thank you for your comments, contributions and concerns, though I will firmly suggest that you consider your tone when addressing other contributors. Spencerian is correct in that possible, logical explanation is acceptable speculation per policy; this does not, in any way, discount adding other explanations, as long as they are reasonably proved and cited. I've also gone over the history of the article in question and have found that you've removed a substantial amount of the article, without discussing it ''before'' you did so. While you did implement some great corrections to the article, I firmly believe that simply discussing such a drastic move prior to implementing it would have been beneficial, and may have ended up in further ''developing'' the article (such as adding other ''scientific'' means of FTL deployed in the series) instead of ''reducing'' the article. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] 20:57, 11 December 2006 (CST)

== Discussions regarding theories posted in the article ==

I'm probably opening a can of worms by doing this, but I believe it is necessary. Barring any official word from the producers, or even [[Kevin Grazier]], we should probably remove the "underpinning" theory, or thoroughly revise the piece so as to include ''thorough'' sourcing with information from reputable scientific journals. So let's begin discussing this issue. Thank you. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] 09:03, 28 March 2007 (CDT)
:I agree. I only recently found Grazier's tech blog that speaks about some of this and can be revised. The screen evidence suggests wormhole, but we need Grazier's information to source it. His blog also illuminates content of the [[Computers in the Re-imagined Series]] article, too, and I've been hoping to get time to update/amend that as well. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 10:51, 28 March 2007 (CDT)

:Uh, what does reputable scientific journals have got to do with anything? It's nice that they're scientific, reputable and no doubt nifty; but what a scientist says has no bearing on a tv show. The only ones who can say exactly how jumpdrive works, are the writers/creators/producers of the show. Even than, it should be taken with a grain of salt until it is actually said and shown in-show - that is, if you demand that only facts and nothing but facts about the show are present in the wiki. --[[User:3DMaster|3DMaster]] 06:33, 29 March 2007 (CDT)

Talk:Propulsion in the Re-imagined Series/Archive 1

2007-03-29T11:32:33Z

3DMaster: /* Discussions regarding theories posted in the article */

This article comprises the bulk of the original FTL article and elements from a past larger article version of [[Science in the Re-imagined Series]], broken out for later expansion and page size considerations. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 08:14, 11 October 2006 (CDT)

== capitalization of "jump" ==

Why is the word "jump" capitalized so often? Both as noun and verb. I could barely understand capitalizing the noun, and even then it's not a proper noun. But writing "Jump" as verb doesn't make any sense whatsoever. It boggles my mind and just looks silly. Maybe it's just me and I'm overreacting (because I find it annoying), but I correct it wherever I see it. 
The only reason I can think of is one or two references in the BSG Season 1 Companion where it is written with a capital letter. But I consider that a typo and not some kind of official standard. --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 16:06, 30 October 2006 (CST)

:I am inclined to agree with you, and I also normally correct, erm change, it when I see it. --[[User:CalculatinAvatar|CalculatinAvatar]]([[Special:Contributions/CalculatinAvatar|C]]-[[User talk:CalculatinAvatar|T]]) 17:16, 30 October 2006 (CST)

::I have tended to capitalize it in the psat, but now if I do, it's only as part of the phrase, "FTL Jump." However, it may be a point of emphasis that is not necessary, although the term may not be easily distinctive without proper context when describing the event (A lot of people have taken up my "bad" habits.) --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 17:44, 30 October 2006 (CST)

:The capitalization bugs me as well. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 18:14, 30 October 2006 (CST)

I've rediscovered why I've done this practice: The show captions ''consistently'' capitalize "Jump" when speaking of such in FTL. It makes sense in context for them to differentiate it as it would here. Using lowercase implies a diminutive or generic use, for which this does not apply. It would be best here to use "FTL Jump" and not "Jump" except in dialogue accounts, but I believe we should avoid genericizing this. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 11:50, 9 November 2006 (CST)

:Continuing the discussion from the Hybrid page. I don't see the need to distinguish its uses. It's not like we are talking of characters jumping around a lot. "FTL Jump" might be ok though, even if it still looks weird to me, but "Jump" alone not so much IMHO. So as you said, if people insist on capitalizing it, they should better add the "FTL" . Though I still think it's pointless --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 08:03, 17 November 2006 (CST)

== My recent edit ==
I've removed a large amount of content. Before you revert me I'd like to point out that extensive discussion of wormholes is pointless as no allusion to them is made in the show and I see no reason to make that assumption. Additionally the physics references are a bit clumsy in those sections. On arrival all ships are brought to an arbitray frame of reference (which leads to the removal of the second footnote as it's clearly wrong). Faster than light is no misnomer in terms of physical displacement per unit time (velocity) as opposed to distance travelled per unit time (speed), the latter being compleltely unimportant in the context. "Electromagnetic and centripetal energies" is incorrect as neither term refers to any energy.

I notice in the history the use of "centrifugal" was corrected to "centripetal", stating "centrifugal is a misnomer - centripetal is the correct term". To this person I suggest you look up the definitions of the words centrifugal, centripetal and misnomer. {{unsigned|Niles}}

:Niles, welcome. As the series generally doesn't get into technobabble and tries to base its technology on theory, rather than fantasy or pseudoscience such as "warp drive," I don't see the justification of the edit. Using wormhole theory (as our scientists tell it) to give a ''possible, logical explanation'' of the FTL principles of the show is acceptable speculation per the wiki's [[BW:CJ|citation policy]], under "derived content." The use of FTL in the show supports the wormhole principle in many, many episodes, with few continuity errors. I appreciate your commentary, but rather than deletion of the central premise, it would be better to add dissenting information that supports your view. I will restore the article's original content based on this, but I encourage you to add your dissent in an encyclopedic way, with its supporting sources. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 09:36, 17 November 2006 (CST)

::''''As the series generally doesn't get into technobabble and tries to base its technology on theory, rather than fantasy or pseudoscience such as "warp drive," I don't see the justification of the edit.'''''
The show doesn't "base" its technology on anything, theory or otherwise; it just is and that's precisely the justification for the edit. A possible explanation? Why not include all of them, even the technobabble ones? While the wormhole concept is a possible explanation it is not probable (inconsistency with visual effects) and hence discussion of "possible" theories in this article is extraneous to the factual data it should contain.

'''' it would be better to add dissenting information that supports your view.''''
The article's not a forum for discussion. If you're after half-baked rationalizations of sci-fi technology you watch lesser shows than BSG, the BSG wiki should be held to similar standards, in my opinion. - --[[User:Niles|Niles]] 19:04, 11 December 2006 (CST)

: Hi Niles, welcome to the Wiki. Thank you for your comments, contributions and concerns, though I will firmly suggest that you consider your tone when addressing other contributors. Spencerian is correct in that possible, logical explanation is acceptable speculation per policy; this does not, in any way, discount adding other explanations, as long as they are reasonably proved and cited. I've also gone over the history of the article in question and have found that you've removed a substantial amount of the article, without discussing it ''before'' you did so. While you did implement some great corrections to the article, I firmly believe that simply discussing such a drastic move prior to implementing it would have been beneficial, and may have ended up in further ''developing'' the article (such as adding other ''scientific'' means of FTL deployed in the series) instead of ''reducing'' the article. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] 20:57, 11 December 2006 (CST)

== Discussions regarding theories posted in the article ==

I'm probably opening a can of worms by doing this, but I believe it is necessary. Barring any official word from the producers, or even [[Kevin Grazier]], we should probably remove the "underpinning" theory, or thoroughly revise the piece so as to include ''thorough'' sourcing with information from reputable scientific journals. So let's begin discussing this issue. Thank you. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] 09:03, 28 March 2007 (CDT)
:I agree. I only recently found Grazier's tech blog that speaks about some of this and can be revised. The screen evidence suggests wormhole, but we need Grazier's information to source it. His blog also illuminates content of the [[Computers in the Re-imagined Series]] article, too, and I've been hoping to get time to update/amend that as well. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 10:51, 28 March 2007 (CDT)
:Uh, what does reputable scientific journals have got to do with anything? It's nice that they're scientific, reputable and no doubt nifty; but what a scientist says has no bearing on a tv show. The only ones who can say exactly how jumpdrive works, are the writers/creators/producers of the show. Even than, it should be taken with a grain of salt until it is actually said and shown in-show - that is, if you demand that only facts and nothing but facts about the show are present in the wiki.

Talk:Propulsion (TOS)/Archive 1

2007-03-29T11:15:58Z

3DMaster: /* TECR link */

User talk:3DMaster

2007-03-29T11:04:49Z

3DMaster: /* Greetings */

== Welcome to Battlestar Wiki! ==
Welcome to the Wiki, 3DMaster. Tell us about yourself on [[User:3DMaster|your user page]].

Battlestar Wiki is an encyclopedia on '''officially-licensed stories, aired episodes, and other products of the ''Battlestar'' universes.''' Make sure that your contributions fit [[Battlestar Wiki:What is Battlestar Wiki|Battlestar Wiki's purpose]], avoiding [[BW:NOT|what we aren't]].

Our [[BW:SAC|editing standards and conventions policies]] may differ from other wikis, especially in verb tense and voice, capitalization and the like. '''Please read this policy.''' We have [[BW:TUT|an editing tutorial]] and [[BW:MARK|wiki markup codes]] to help you.

Our policies on [[w:Original research|original research]] differ from places such as Wikipedia. We allow [[BW:CJ#Derived Content|some research based on aired episode content]], but don't allow [[BW:FANW|speculation that isn't supported from episode events]].

Battlestar Wiki's [[Battlestar Wiki:Project List|many projects]] help improve our content. Are you a [[Original Series]] fan? Help out in the [[Battlestar Wiki:Original Series Article Development Project|Original Series Article Project]]. [[Battlestar Wiki:Translation Project|Non-English versions of Battlestar Wiki]] also need contributors, and helpers for our [[BW:POD|podcast transcriptions]] are also welcome. New projects should be brought to our [[BW:TANK|Think Tank]], where we hash out large-scale ideas before implementing them.

Any questions about an article can be entered on the article's talk page. General questions about the wiki can be brought to [[Battlestar Wiki:Wikipedian Quorum|the Quorum]] or [[Battlestar Wiki:Administrators' noticeboard|the administrators' noticeboard]]. To sign your posts on any talk page, just enter four tildes (~~~~)!

We look forward to your contributions to the community!
--[[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 17:02, 25 March 2007 (CDT)

== Greetings ==

Hi there. I just read your response to my comments on the [[Propulsion (TOS)]] article and I was a bit put off. I apologize if you felt that you were personally slighted.

I am one of several administrators on Battlestar Wiki. Like on other wikis, that's not generally much in the way of important things, except we also act as mediators, moderators, and, sometimes, police. Please remember that, as wikis aren't chat boards, it's not appropriate to do point-by-point responses that edit other contributor's comments. Second, it is very important that you read the policies and practices of this wiki. We really love enthusiasm and fresh insight, but we have rules to conduct ourselves, and you have violated one: [[BW:CIVIL|please be civil]] in responding. I'll later reedit (or you can) the response accordingly and give you some thoughts another day. Thanks for your understanding. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 19:00, 25 March 2007 (CDT)

:3DMaster, I'm readding your comment on my talk page and my reply comes after.
:<blockquote>I wasn't aware I was being uncivil. I reread my comments, and only "LOL" and the question about knowing science might be so. The question however was just that, a question. The New Series "science" is as far removed from science as you can get, and article about the New Series FTL propulsion, quite frankly, is a mess. The article talks about how the shows producers keep it natural and chose something within science, as if other SF series and books don't; which is of course ridiculous. The whole point of SF is take something that is grounded in science; possibly make up some new science to circumvent something, but basically keep it grounded. It is not called ''Science'' Fiction for nothing. To say the nBSG is the only one who does this, is patently false. Then after saying how natural and non-gimmicky and possible it; one names the ultimate in gimmicky FTL technologies; heck the holy grail in FTL technologies.</blockquote>

:Neither ''Battlestar Galactica'' shows are [[w:hard science fiction|hard SF]], although the new show's creators attempted to define what SF cliches they would not do. Fans and contributors on Battlestar Wiki have their own ideas as to what is and isn't. To make this encyclopedia of fictional works as accurate as possible, however, it is important to stick to what information is given by the series creators to define its universe. Anything else is fanwanking: fans who apply their knowledge, feelings, or experience to what they see on-screen and, as a result, attempt to write show content. ''Battlestar'' in both incarnations has always concentrated on the characters and not the science (or pseudo-science). Again, if you have found a scientific aspect of the show that can be elaborated on AND you can cite your source, please feel free to update the page. For now, in order for the wiki to be worth anything, we can only define what the show's content provides, and not attempt to fill in the gaps through our own additions to the show. For more clarification, please read our [[BW:CJ|citation]] and [[BW:FANW|inappropriate speculation]] policies. It's important to note that your comment was more grousing than a "what" was wrong and "how" you could fix it. Wikis aren't complaint boards. You're encouraged to fix what you feel is an inaccurate entry, but just stay in our ground rules for sourcing, never adding more to an article than what the show's sparse data has provided. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 08:42, 28 March 2007 (CDT)

::And yet, the new Galactica's propulsion page, is nothing but inappropriate speculation without a single citation anywhere. And the source is the show itself. The lagrange point corridor is the only way the story of Gun on Ice Planet Zero makes any sense: the lagrange point is covered by that gun and thus there's no way for the Fleet to "simply go around" the planet or "stay far away from it". All other depictions of the show (always appearing in a solar system and immediately sending out patrols (and not sending out patrols before they arrive, and avoiding the system entirely if there are Cylons), and never seeing the ship in interstellar space builds a completely consistent view of Galactica's FTL capabilities (or lack thereof seeing as it just uses something that naturally exists.) The folding and wormhole bit is never stated on the nBSG, but it is the only logically conclusion from watching the show; the same with TOS.

::Staying within the rules for sourcing is not possible (and the nBSG propulsion page has violated those rules grossly as well, I might add), in fact, what's on the page for TOS propulsion now violates it. It's stated without a single shred of evidence or source that Lightspeed means FTL; when in fact, nothing was said of sort, in fact, given that the Galactica hadn't gone Lightspeed in ages in Experiment in Terra; it pretty much precludes it from being FTL, because both the Galactica and the Fleet would have to have gone FTL to get to other stars and thus to Terra, and thus it would have to have been using Lightspeed all the time. --[[User:3DMaster|3DMaster]] 05:35, 29 March 2007 (CDT)

Talk:Propulsion (TOS)/Archive 1

2007-03-29T10:59:39Z

3DMaster: /* TECR link */

== Article Need ==

Since the [[FTL]] article is primarily about the more-detailed aspects of lightspeed travel in the RDM series, a separate article, albeit brief, seemed appropriate to do here for TOS. I didn't want to mix up the two, and text here would be lost to the bulk of the FTL article if merged. Thus, I kept it separate with this article, which also helps contrast them. If anyone has the shot of Old-School ''Galactica'' moving away (her stern to us) at lightspeed, it would be good here. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 14:08, 12 June 2006 (CDT)

== Scientific accuracy ==

Should there maybe a note stating how nonsensical the show's reliance on sublight propulsion is? They regularly visit new solar systems and there are even a few references to them moving to another ''galaxy''. All that is impossible at such low speeds. --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 10:37, 11 October 2006 (CDT)
: Sure. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] 10:46, 11 October 2006 (CDT)
:Please do. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 11:14, 11 October 2006 (CDT)

== Lost Planet Ref ==
Should any mention be made of the discussion that Lucifer and Baltar have regarding lightspeed in [[Lost Planet of the Gods, Part I#Noteworthy_Dialogue|Lost Planet, I]]? --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 10:58, 16 January 2007 (CST)
:The part about ''Galactica'' being only as fast as the other ships, is already in the 2nd paragraph, but can be cited with that episode. Aside from that it's one the few direct references to lightspeed, so I'd say yes. --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 11:34, 16 January 2007 (CST)

LOL. We made the same edits at the same time. --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 12:03, 16 January 2007 (CST)
:I pulled the duplicate quote, but I think everything else can stay. Now we've got an episode cite on the slowly moving second paragraph, and the unsubstantiated is now "rarely mentioned". I still don't understand how the Cylons didn't easily catch up with them whenever they wanted if they had lightspeed and the Colonials couldn't... whatever. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 12:05, 16 January 2007 (CST)

== FTL for real ==

Well, that's a rather useless piece of text, isn't it? Also highly inaccurate. The talk of "going to lightspeed" is not going FTL at all; it's simply the fastest speed the Galactica reach using conventional speed; and it's no doubt the reference to how fast the ions that move the ship forward are accelerated out of the engines.

The FTL technology used in TOS is very close approximation of the following: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alderson_drive Alderson Drive]. One can infer this rather easily. The Galactica (and Cylons) indeed have no active FTL drive, but they do jump from solar system to solar system. Once reaching such a system, they invariably send out patrols. These patrols are quickly out of communications range. These patrols also don't go looking for hostiles, since they mostly know the Cylons are behind them. What remains; is that the vipers are looking for something; and not simply planets. There seems to only one logical conclusion; they are looking for the same something that brought them there: Star's Langrange point. These are places where two stars gravity and other emissions form a bridge, a tunnel, that can be accessed with the right technology. Once found, the fleet takes the best of any such points founds, and goes through it.

This fits with all that we've observed in TOS - the only sad thing is, that it was never explicitly shown, or explained - very possibly due to lack of budget. It also requires a complete ground up rewrite of the article, making clear distinctions between STL propulsion (the ion drive) and the FTL propulsion (the Alderson drive) and dropping just about all of the disparaging remarks, and requiring one to have an open mind, and look a bit deeper than the superficial.

It's late here, and I'm wondering how much a complete and total rewrite would go over, with remarks like the above in these discussion pages. {{unsigned|3DMaster}}

:Hi, 3DMaster. Keep in mind that, like ''Star Wars'' before it, the Original Series was a space ''fantasy.''

::No, it wasn't. Not even close. Apart from both having carrier ships and fighters, they have nothing in common, and BSG is most definitely not space fantasy.

:Scientific accuracy in the series' single season was never a priority.
::That's where you're only partially right. When one looks at BSG, one gets the impression there are two camps in the production offices; one who strives as much to scientific accuracy as possible, and one side, partially by budgetary and deadline reasons, just wants to get the filming done. There are an extreme amount of scenes and events that show a continuous scientific paradigm, especially the FTL technology used, interspersed with some really iffy stuff.

:Many, many contributors of the [[Battlestar Wiki:Original Series Article Development Project|Original Series Article Project]] have combed through the episodes and documented an extensive amount of technology and terminology from the show, and, using the tools of [[BW:CJ#Derived Content|derived content]], have tried to piece together some semblance of the science of the show. However, while certain levels of speculation that is supported by the series' events, conversations and the like are allowed on this wiki (which strives to use canonical works only), we don't try to "make up" or associate "our" technologies or theories to fill in the gaps of the series' storylines ''per se''. That's known as "[[BW:FANW|fanwanking]]", and it is a form of fan fiction--none of which Battlestar Wiki allows. If you've seen something in the series that suggests that the technology used was directly based on technologies you know ''as well as'' an official source (that's cast, crew or producers from the old series) that supports your speculation, then do be bold and rewrite the article as you see fit.
::Then they haven't dug very deep. But I can already see it; this place is basically: TOS is stupid, dumb stuff, so we don't have to look to deep, and don't bother with anything but a little logic to certain consistent ways things are done in the show, and nobody actually intimately knowledgeable about the show, and knows the show is asked to contribute, is asked for opinions, or any information about TOS written as such on the net has been looked up, in fact, the very least that could have been done, if you count logical deduction as idle speculation and fanwanking, would be to put in links to TOS technology sites, but even they aren't there.

:Battlestar Wiki articles that speculate intentionally limit their descriptions when little or no canonical information exists, which is why you found the article as it was. Keep in mind that this article contrasts with the far-more-scientifically-based Re-imagined Series article parent, [[Science in the Re-imagined Series]], which grounds its content much more on both observation as well as cast, crew and production sources (and all that's because the series [[Ron D. Moore|executive producer]] wanted to avoid [[Naturalistic science fiction|many old SF clichés and gimmicks]]. Original Series sourcing is much harder as you can guess, so tread lightly but have fun. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 18:02, 25 March 2007 (CDT)
::LOL. That's a good one. The more scientifically based re-imagined series? You obviously have got NO idea of science do you? TOS is scientifically FAR more consistent than the new series. The new series is a mess, let me point a few things out:

::1. The computer technology required to produce a sentient species of robots is FAR in excess of what WE posses; and the nBSG computer technology is LESS than ours.

:::Not correct, actually. Before the Cylon War, the Colonials of the "nBSG" actually had much better technology than deployed in the Miniseries and on. As established in the Miniseries, the Colonials discarded much of their technology since the Cylons were able to turn it against them. (Doral mentions much of this during his presentation to the press tour on ''Galactica'' within the first hour.) It was only 40 years later when Colonials began better embracing pre-War technologies, wireless networks, and such. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] 18:35, 27 March 2007 (CDT)

::::And reducing to such a tiny level that they could never do the devastatingly massive calculations required to calculate such a thing as a fold space jump generator. Also, lowering your computer capabilities is ridiculous. That wouldn't make it more difficult to hack by Cylons, but EASIER. What you need to build are better firewalls, not lower your computers computational power, and thereby making it easier to slip into holes by the opposition, it's now wonder they're so easily hacked. --[[User:3DMaster|3DMaster]] 05:30, 29 March 2007 (CDT)

::2. The technology required to build their jump drive: enormous computer technology the colonials don't have, forcefield generation, plasma control physics, high-end lasers, as well as higher dimension understanding of physics. Some of it, we posses, the nBSG folks don't. All of it, those so called gimmicky scifi stuff RDM didn't want to use, or can be used to build them. For them to have the technology to build that jump drive, but not being able to build a single operational laser or energy weapon, is ridiculous in the extreme.

::: Actually, various scientific journals have questioned the practicality of beam weapons, particularly as a replacement of projectile weapons. Additionally, the original series never once uses forcefields (the Prison Barge didn't have any for their cells, as seen in "War of the Gods" and "Baltar's Escape"). The only known instance of energy shields ever being mentioned is by Commander Cain in "Living Legend, Part II". -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] 18:35, 27 March 2007 (CDT)

:::: Whether or not beam weapons are practical, has no bearing on the fact that that is but a tiny fraction of the tech required to have a functioning jump drive. Also, those scientists are utterly stupid and clueless. You will run out of ammunition, you got a good enough power source, you'll hardly ever, and in case of renewable power sources like zero point energy, you'll never run out of energy to fire those weapons. Finally, generating a magnetic field around a ship with a powerful enough engine; like matter/anti-matter drive that deflects small meteors and such is easy to do; we already can if we wanted to build such a drive. Against such a field, (what Star Trek incidentally calls navigational shields) projectiles are completely useless: they'll be deflect/bent around the ship. --[[User:3DMaster|3DMaster]] 05:30, 29 March 2007 (CDT)

::A little example; those laser torpedoes, those gimmicky scifi weapons the TOS vipers fired; they were conceived in the early eighties, and we have them operational in the lab now. Not quite efficient enough yet to actually use, but it'll get there. Yet the guys with the FTL drive, can't do it. Makes one laugh one's ass off.--[[User:3DMaster|3DMaster]] 18:41, 25 March 2007 (CDT)

::: Actually, there are many TOS fans that disagree with you. For instance, Susan Paxton would [http://www.geocities.com/sjpaxton/newpage2.html seriously disagree with you on your assertion on there being two camps in the series], including many science fiction writers (Asimov one of them) railed against the series for its various scientific inaccuracies. Also, "laser torpedoes" are an oxymoron I rather not discuss. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] 18:35, 27 March 2007 (CDT)

:::: She probably wasn't aware of them. TOS is completely, utterly, and totally consistently written with the Galactica using those jump corridors; in fact, the much decried episode Gun on Ice Planet Zero, makes perfect sense. If that lagrange point they need to jump through, is always close by that planet, and the gun is built to cover it, there is indeed no way to avoid that gun and planet. Also, just because something is called a laser, doesn't mean it's a laser. Often thinks are named upon older conventions and the name sticks, even if strictly logically speaking the name isn't correct. Hence "Turbo Lasers" in SW/TOS:BSG not being actual "lasers" but more a stream of plasma. Laser torpedoes in that, are an extremely concentrated burst of plasma; who after a short time will overcome its own compression... rather explosively. And we actually have those weapons in the lab, as said; we have it as a solid fuel that is superheated into a plasma, contained in a cannister; it acts and behaves just like TOS BSGs laser torpedoes. --[[User:3DMaster|3DMaster]] 05:30, 29 March 2007 (CDT)

== TECR link ==

I am removing the link to tecr.com because of the following:

# The article is not cited with references from the series. It is made up of various theories that attempt to explain STL and FTL travel in the series.
# There is consistent reference to "ion" drives for STL travel, none of which were mentioned in the original series.
# There is no on-screen evidence or the dialogue of the use of hyperspace or jump corridors.

Also, per [[BW:CJ|the Citation Jihad]], the Galactica tech manual has been identified as fanon and should not be referred to as a valid source of information. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] 18:35, 27 March 2007 (CDT)

:LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Yo, Specarian? What did I wrote you in that piece on your talk page? In short: we don't want ANYTHING here that might, possibly, indicate that TOS is more what dogma demands it to be, aka ridiculous peace of space fantasy. We will only look at direct quotes, we don't want a single shred of logic, just total illogic and deeper look at the bleeding obvious at how TOS was set, nothing, nada zilch, while we happily keep on slamming TOS. About double standards: say, Joe, are going to delete the entire nBSG propulsion page too? After all, nowhere, anywhere, in the show was there ever a single mention of Super strings, Membranes, wormholes, or folding space. Just jump, and spin. Ugh! This place is ridiculous. Ban me, remove me, I don't care.

:: We're not into "slamming" TOS, as you so term it. We're here to find out facts, simply put. We're not here to promote an "anti-TOS agenda"/"pro-RDM agenda"... apparently the fact that you are so quick to jump to that conclusion begins leading me to believe that you're not actually interested in helping, but in fact are here only to stir up trouble.

:: Also, for the record, I am a TOS fan, and supported both Richard Hatch's and DeSanto/Singer's continuation efforts. I happen love both series, but that doesn't mean that we are blind to the flaws in both series. (And since you clearly believe that we are very RDM-biased, please note that we have indicated flaws within the series, notably the [[Season two timeline discontinuity]] and "[[A Measure of Salvation]]".) -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] 19:57, 27 March 2007 (CDT)

:::No of course not, it just looks that way. nBSG propulsion pages is failed with baseless speculation that is never, not once, not even close being mentioned on the show. Facts? Think not. But with that it's all just fine. TOS propulsion pages, is nothing but a bunch of thinly-veiled insults; and when one would like to actually do more than just an outside link, it's not allowed to, because hey, nBSG may have baseless speculation all over the place, oBSG may not, not even in a link to the outside. You know, it's probably just me, but an encyclopedia might actually want to have something for people who want to know about other than insults, even if it's just a link to an outside source; so they can look onward to more and really verse them in everything about the show, including more than nothing but superficial looking - like, you know, the whole baseless folding and super string thing on the nBSG propulsion page. I wonder what the reaction of nBSG fans is, if I set up a TOS BSG wiki where the only information on nBSG is insults and slams on how ridiculous it is, that such utter primitive culture is without SciFi gimmicks is capable of producing an FTL drive for which one requires all those SciFi gimmicks to get it to work; thus it's nothing but useless space fantasy.

:::Anyone who claims this place isn't measuring with two standards is dishonest to the extreme.

:::And no, I'm not here just to stir up trouble; unless "just trouble" is defined as: looking with utter disbelief at nothing but thinly veiled insults on the TOS propulsion page, and wanting to add something more substantial, more honest, and counter to the going paradigm is considered "just trouble" --[[User:3DMaster|3DMaster]] 06:31, 28 March 2007 (CDT)

::::I have some issues with the theoretical portion of the page, to be honest. I'll begin spearheading a discussion on what needs to be changed on that page [[Talk:Propulsion in the Re-imagined Series|here]]. However, the present page on original series propulsion is pretty well sourced from comments on the show, unless you have behind-the-scenes information that has additional information on FTL capability in the original series. (Honestly, all the sources I am able to obtain indicate that there was extremely little thought in the scientific aspects of the show, which is apparent with the lack of magnetic boots for the spacesuits and on, as well as the ''Galactica'''s inability to de-pressurize the ship in order to quell a fire.) Also, there was a lot of politicking going on behind the scenes, and the series was so rushed that it didn't have time to develop stories properly, if you'll note the interviews that Susan Paxton did on the story editors, which are listed on [http://geocities.com/sjpaxton/intervie.html this page]. With these interviews, I find it extremely difficult to agree with your assertion that there were "clearly" two camps behind the scenes in terms of scientific accuracy.) -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] 08:57, 28 March 2007 (CDT)

:::::We've never even seen the TOS guys in space suits. And if you say there's a lot of politicking going on, and lots of rushing, you have the multiple camps and people doing things she doesn't know about right there. Like I said above, Classic Galactica is completely consistent with, and only consistent with entering naturally existing jump corridors. And you should read the first note on the TOS propulsion place. TOS propulsion was not based in existing science unlike the nBSG. First, there's no point in mentioning, except for going "Neener, neener, neener, nBSG is better than old one, ha ha!", and second is false. Exactly what the jump drive is, and how it works has never been explained; for all we know a finger of the Greek gods they worship is in there, and it activates the gods' teleportation abilities.

:::::And no, I don't it's pretty well sourced. It's filled with thinly veiled insults, and also riddled with base assumptions. Nowhere in the series has it ever been said, or even implied that going to "lightspeed" means FTL speeds. In fact, except for that the term was used for FTL hyper jumps in Star Wars, every thing suggests that it is indeed NOT going faster than light. To state categorically that lightspeed means faster than light, as as much a baseless assumption as the corridors in the other site.

:::::Finally; just because you can't have anything except the bare naked facts on the wiki itself, why can't you have links to places that is more that just bare naked, superficial facts, where what's shown on screen is analyzed and a logical conclusion drawn, if necessary with the disclaimer, "Since the TOS for various reasons, both behind scenes and SFX and budget limitations never showed the ship using any kind of FTL, and it was never discussed in-show either, the following site is not absolute fact, but a elaboration on TOS FTL usage." (In fact, just about that entire sentence should be at the top of the page; and give all the possible interpretations of the show. From the bare superficial lightspeed, to something a little deeper, or say nothing at all except that sentence, and then just links to sites which go deeper.) --[[User:3DMaster|3DMaster]] 05:47, 29 March 2007 (CDT)

Talk:Propulsion (TOS)/Archive 1

2007-03-29T10:47:47Z

3DMaster: /* FTL for real */

== Article Need ==

Since the [[FTL]] article is primarily about the more-detailed aspects of lightspeed travel in the RDM series, a separate article, albeit brief, seemed appropriate to do here for TOS. I didn't want to mix up the two, and text here would be lost to the bulk of the FTL article if merged. Thus, I kept it separate with this article, which also helps contrast them. If anyone has the shot of Old-School ''Galactica'' moving away (her stern to us) at lightspeed, it would be good here. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 14:08, 12 June 2006 (CDT)

== Scientific accuracy ==

Should there maybe a note stating how nonsensical the show's reliance on sublight propulsion is? They regularly visit new solar systems and there are even a few references to them moving to another ''galaxy''. All that is impossible at such low speeds. --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 10:37, 11 October 2006 (CDT)
: Sure. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] 10:46, 11 October 2006 (CDT)
:Please do. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 11:14, 11 October 2006 (CDT)

== Lost Planet Ref ==
Should any mention be made of the discussion that Lucifer and Baltar have regarding lightspeed in [[Lost Planet of the Gods, Part I#Noteworthy_Dialogue|Lost Planet, I]]? --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 10:58, 16 January 2007 (CST)
:The part about ''Galactica'' being only as fast as the other ships, is already in the 2nd paragraph, but can be cited with that episode. Aside from that it's one the few direct references to lightspeed, so I'd say yes. --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 11:34, 16 January 2007 (CST)

LOL. We made the same edits at the same time. --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 12:03, 16 January 2007 (CST)
:I pulled the duplicate quote, but I think everything else can stay. Now we've got an episode cite on the slowly moving second paragraph, and the unsubstantiated is now "rarely mentioned". I still don't understand how the Cylons didn't easily catch up with them whenever they wanted if they had lightspeed and the Colonials couldn't... whatever. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 12:05, 16 January 2007 (CST)

== FTL for real ==

Well, that's a rather useless piece of text, isn't it? Also highly inaccurate. The talk of "going to lightspeed" is not going FTL at all; it's simply the fastest speed the Galactica reach using conventional speed; and it's no doubt the reference to how fast the ions that move the ship forward are accelerated out of the engines.

The FTL technology used in TOS is very close approximation of the following: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alderson_drive Alderson Drive]. One can infer this rather easily. The Galactica (and Cylons) indeed have no active FTL drive, but they do jump from solar system to solar system. Once reaching such a system, they invariably send out patrols. These patrols are quickly out of communications range. These patrols also don't go looking for hostiles, since they mostly know the Cylons are behind them. What remains; is that the vipers are looking for something; and not simply planets. There seems to only one logical conclusion; they are looking for the same something that brought them there: Star's Langrange point. These are places where two stars gravity and other emissions form a bridge, a tunnel, that can be accessed with the right technology. Once found, the fleet takes the best of any such points founds, and goes through it.

This fits with all that we've observed in TOS - the only sad thing is, that it was never explicitly shown, or explained - very possibly due to lack of budget. It also requires a complete ground up rewrite of the article, making clear distinctions between STL propulsion (the ion drive) and the FTL propulsion (the Alderson drive) and dropping just about all of the disparaging remarks, and requiring one to have an open mind, and look a bit deeper than the superficial.

It's late here, and I'm wondering how much a complete and total rewrite would go over, with remarks like the above in these discussion pages. {{unsigned|3DMaster}}

:Hi, 3DMaster. Keep in mind that, like ''Star Wars'' before it, the Original Series was a space ''fantasy.''

::No, it wasn't. Not even close. Apart from both having carrier ships and fighters, they have nothing in common, and BSG is most definitely not space fantasy.

:Scientific accuracy in the series' single season was never a priority.
::That's where you're only partially right. When one looks at BSG, one gets the impression there are two camps in the production offices; one who strives as much to scientific accuracy as possible, and one side, partially by budgetary and deadline reasons, just wants to get the filming done. There are an extreme amount of scenes and events that show a continuous scientific paradigm, especially the FTL technology used, interspersed with some really iffy stuff.

:Many, many contributors of the [[Battlestar Wiki:Original Series Article Development Project|Original Series Article Project]] have combed through the episodes and documented an extensive amount of technology and terminology from the show, and, using the tools of [[BW:CJ#Derived Content|derived content]], have tried to piece together some semblance of the science of the show. However, while certain levels of speculation that is supported by the series' events, conversations and the like are allowed on this wiki (which strives to use canonical works only), we don't try to "make up" or associate "our" technologies or theories to fill in the gaps of the series' storylines ''per se''. That's known as "[[BW:FANW|fanwanking]]", and it is a form of fan fiction--none of which Battlestar Wiki allows. If you've seen something in the series that suggests that the technology used was directly based on technologies you know ''as well as'' an official source (that's cast, crew or producers from the old series) that supports your speculation, then do be bold and rewrite the article as you see fit.
::Then they haven't dug very deep. But I can already see it; this place is basically: TOS is stupid, dumb stuff, so we don't have to look to deep, and don't bother with anything but a little logic to certain consistent ways things are done in the show, and nobody actually intimately knowledgeable about the show, and knows the show is asked to contribute, is asked for opinions, or any information about TOS written as such on the net has been looked up, in fact, the very least that could have been done, if you count logical deduction as idle speculation and fanwanking, would be to put in links to TOS technology sites, but even they aren't there.

:Battlestar Wiki articles that speculate intentionally limit their descriptions when little or no canonical information exists, which is why you found the article as it was. Keep in mind that this article contrasts with the far-more-scientifically-based Re-imagined Series article parent, [[Science in the Re-imagined Series]], which grounds its content much more on both observation as well as cast, crew and production sources (and all that's because the series [[Ron D. Moore|executive producer]] wanted to avoid [[Naturalistic science fiction|many old SF clichés and gimmicks]]. Original Series sourcing is much harder as you can guess, so tread lightly but have fun. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 18:02, 25 March 2007 (CDT)
::LOL. That's a good one. The more scientifically based re-imagined series? You obviously have got NO idea of science do you? TOS is scientifically FAR more consistent than the new series. The new series is a mess, let me point a few things out:

::1. The computer technology required to produce a sentient species of robots is FAR in excess of what WE posses; and the nBSG computer technology is LESS than ours.

:::Not correct, actually. Before the Cylon War, the Colonials of the "nBSG" actually had much better technology than deployed in the Miniseries and on. As established in the Miniseries, the Colonials discarded much of their technology since the Cylons were able to turn it against them. (Doral mentions much of this during his presentation to the press tour on ''Galactica'' within the first hour.) It was only 40 years later when Colonials began better embracing pre-War technologies, wireless networks, and such. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] 18:35, 27 March 2007 (CDT)

::::And reducing to such a tiny level that they could never do the devastatingly massive calculations required to calculate such a thing as a fold space jump generator. Also, lowering your computer capabilities is ridiculous. That wouldn't make it more difficult to hack by Cylons, but EASIER. What you need to build are better firewalls, not lower your computers computational power, and thereby making it easier to slip into holes by the opposition, it's now wonder they're so easily hacked. --[[User:3DMaster|3DMaster]] 05:30, 29 March 2007 (CDT)

::2. The technology required to build their jump drive: enormous computer technology the colonials don't have, forcefield generation, plasma control physics, high-end lasers, as well as higher dimension understanding of physics. Some of it, we posses, the nBSG folks don't. All of it, those so called gimmicky scifi stuff RDM didn't want to use, or can be used to build them. For them to have the technology to build that jump drive, but not being able to build a single operational laser or energy weapon, is ridiculous in the extreme.

::: Actually, various scientific journals have questioned the practicality of beam weapons, particularly as a replacement of projectile weapons. Additionally, the original series never once uses forcefields (the Prison Barge didn't have any for their cells, as seen in "War of the Gods" and "Baltar's Escape"). The only known instance of energy shields ever being mentioned is by Commander Cain in "Living Legend, Part II". -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] 18:35, 27 March 2007 (CDT)

:::: Whether or not beam weapons are practical, has no bearing on the fact that that is but a tiny fraction of the tech required to have a functioning jump drive. Also, those scientists are utterly stupid and clueless. You will run out of ammunition, you got a good enough power source, you'll hardly ever, and in case of renewable power sources like zero point energy, you'll never run out of energy to fire those weapons. Finally, generating a magnetic field around a ship with a powerful enough engine; like matter/anti-matter drive that deflects small meteors and such is easy to do; we already can if we wanted to build such a drive. Against such a field, (what Star Trek incidentally calls navigational shields) projectiles are completely useless: they'll be deflect/bent around the ship. --[[User:3DMaster|3DMaster]] 05:30, 29 March 2007 (CDT)

::A little example; those laser torpedoes, those gimmicky scifi weapons the TOS vipers fired; they were conceived in the early eighties, and we have them operational in the lab now. Not quite efficient enough yet to actually use, but it'll get there. Yet the guys with the FTL drive, can't do it. Makes one laugh one's ass off.--[[User:3DMaster|3DMaster]] 18:41, 25 March 2007 (CDT)

::: Actually, there are many TOS fans that disagree with you. For instance, Susan Paxton would [http://www.geocities.com/sjpaxton/newpage2.html seriously disagree with you on your assertion on there being two camps in the series], including many science fiction writers (Asimov one of them) railed against the series for its various scientific inaccuracies. Also, "laser torpedoes" are an oxymoron I rather not discuss. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] 18:35, 27 March 2007 (CDT)

:::: She probably wasn't aware of them. TOS is completely, utterly, and totally consistently written with the Galactica using those jump corridors; in fact, the much decried episode Gun on Ice Planet Zero, makes perfect sense. If that lagrange point they need to jump through, is always close by that planet, and the gun is built to cover it, there is indeed no way to avoid that gun and planet. Also, just because something is called a laser, doesn't mean it's a laser. Often thinks are named upon older conventions and the name sticks, even if strictly logically speaking the name isn't correct. Hence "Turbo Lasers" in SW/TOS:BSG not being actual "lasers" but more a stream of plasma. Laser torpedoes in that, are an extremely concentrated burst of plasma; who after a short time will overcome its own compression... rather explosively. And we actually have those weapons in the lab, as said; we have it as a solid fuel that is superheated into a plasma, contained in a cannister; it acts and behaves just like TOS BSGs laser torpedoes. --[[User:3DMaster|3DMaster]] 05:30, 29 March 2007 (CDT)

== TECR link ==

I am removing the link to tecr.com because of the following:

# The article is not cited with references from the series. It is made up of various theories that attempt to explain STL and FTL travel in the series.
# There is consistent reference to "ion" drives for STL travel, none of which were mentioned in the original series.
# There is no on-screen evidence or the dialogue of the use of hyperspace or jump corridors.

Also, per [[BW:CJ|the Citation Jihad]], the Galactica tech manual has been identified as fanon and should not be referred to as a valid source of information. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] 18:35, 27 March 2007 (CDT)

:LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Yo, Specarian? What did I wrote you in that piece on your talk page? In short: we don't want ANYTHING here that might, possibly, indicate that TOS is more what dogma demands it to be, aka ridiculous peace of space fantasy. We will only look at direct quotes, we don't want a single shred of logic, just total illogic and deeper look at the bleeding obvious at how TOS was set, nothing, nada zilch, while we happily keep on slamming TOS. About double standards: say, Joe, are going to delete the entire nBSG propulsion page too? After all, nowhere, anywhere, in the show was there ever a single mention of Super strings, Membranes, wormholes, or folding space. Just jump, and spin. Ugh! This place is ridiculous. Ban me, remove me, I don't care.

:: We're not into "slamming" TOS, as you so term it. We're here to find out facts, simply put. We're not here to promote an "anti-TOS agenda"/"pro-RDM agenda"... apparently the fact that you are so quick to jump to that conclusion begins leading me to believe that you're not actually interested in helping, but in fact are here only to stir up trouble.

:: Also, for the record, I am a TOS fan, and supported both Richard Hatch's and DeSanto/Singer's continuation efforts. I happen love both series, but that doesn't mean that we are blind to the flaws in both series. (And since you clearly believe that we are very RDM-biased, please note that we have indicated flaws within the series, notably the [[Season two timeline discontinuity]] and "[[A Measure of Salvation]]".) -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] 19:57, 27 March 2007 (CDT)

:::No of course not, it just looks that way. nBSG propulsion pages is failed with baseless speculation that is never, not once, not even close being mentioned on the show. Facts? Think not. But with that it's all just fine. TOS propulsion pages, is nothing but a bunch of thinly-veiled insults; and when one would like to actually do more than just an outside link, it's not allowed to, because hey, nBSG may have baseless speculation all over the place, oBSG may not, not even in a link to the outside. You know, it's probably just me, but an encyclopedia might actually want to have something for people who want to know about other than insults, even if it's just a link to an outside source; so they can look onward to more and really verse them in everything about the show, including more than nothing but superficial looking - like, you know, the whole baseless folding and super string thing on the nBSG propulsion page. I wonder what the reaction of nBSG fans is, if I set up a TOS BSG wiki where the only information on nBSG is insults and slams on how ridiculous it is, that such utter primitive culture is without SciFi gimmicks is capable of producing an FTL drive for which one requires all those SciFi gimmicks to get it to work; thus it's nothing but useless space fantasy.

:::Anyone who claims this place isn't measuring with two standards is dishonest to the extreme.

:::And no, I'm not here just to stir up trouble; unless "just trouble" is defined as: looking with utter disbelief at nothing but thinly veiled insults on the TOS propulsion page, and wanting to add something more substantial, more honest, and counter to the going paradigm is considered "just trouble" --[[User:3DMaster|3DMaster]] 06:31, 28 March 2007 (CDT)

::::I have some issues with the theoretical portion of the page, to be honest. I'll begin spearheading a discussion on what needs to be changed on that page [[Talk:Propulsion in the Re-imagined Series|here]]. However, the present page on original series propulsion is pretty well sourced from comments on the show, unless you have behind-the-scenes information that has additional information on FTL capability in the original series. (Honestly, all the sources I am able to obtain indicate that there was extremely little thought in the scientific aspects of the show, which is apparent with the lack of magnetic boots for the spacesuits and on, as well as the ''Galactica'''s inability to de-pressurize the ship in order to quell a fire.) Also, there was a lot of politicking going on behind the scenes, and the series was so rushed that it didn't have time to develop stories properly, if you'll note the interviews that Susan Paxton did on the story editors, which are listed on [http://geocities.com/sjpaxton/intervie.html this page]. With these interviews, I find it extremely difficult to agree with your assertion that there were "clearly" two camps behind the scenes in terms of scientific accuracy.) -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] 08:57, 28 March 2007 (CDT)

:::::We've never even seen the TOS guys in space suits. And if you say there's a lot of politicking going on, and lots of rushing, you have the multiple camps and people doing things she doesn't know about right there. Like I said above, Classic Galactica is completely consistent with, and only consistent with entering naturally existing jump corridors. And you should read the first note on the TOS propulsion place. TOS propulsion was not based in existing science unlike the nBSG. First, there's no point in mentioning, except for going "Neener, neener, neener, nBSG is better than old one, ha ha!", and second is false. Exactly what the jump drive is, and how it works has never been explained; for all we know a finger of the Greek gods they worship is in there, and it activates the gods' teleportation abilities.--[[User:3DMaster|3DMaster]] 05:47, 29 March 2007 (CDT)

User talk:3DMaster

2007-03-29T10:35:51Z

3DMaster: /* Greetings */

== Welcome to Battlestar Wiki! ==
Welcome to the Wiki, 3DMaster. Tell us about yourself on [[User:3DMaster|your user page]].

Battlestar Wiki is an encyclopedia on '''officially-licensed stories, aired episodes, and other products of the ''Battlestar'' universes.''' Make sure that your contributions fit [[Battlestar Wiki:What is Battlestar Wiki|Battlestar Wiki's purpose]], avoiding [[BW:NOT|what we aren't]].

Our [[BW:SAC|editing standards and conventions policies]] may differ from other wikis, especially in verb tense and voice, capitalization and the like. '''Please read this policy.''' We have [[BW:TUT|an editing tutorial]] and [[BW:MARK|wiki markup codes]] to help you.

Our policies on [[w:Original research|original research]] differ from places such as Wikipedia. We allow [[BW:CJ#Derived Content|some research based on aired episode content]], but don't allow [[BW:FANW|speculation that isn't supported from episode events]].

Battlestar Wiki's [[Battlestar Wiki:Project List|many projects]] help improve our content. Are you a [[Original Series]] fan? Help out in the [[Battlestar Wiki:Original Series Article Development Project|Original Series Article Project]]. [[Battlestar Wiki:Translation Project|Non-English versions of Battlestar Wiki]] also need contributors, and helpers for our [[BW:POD|podcast transcriptions]] are also welcome. New projects should be brought to our [[BW:TANK|Think Tank]], where we hash out large-scale ideas before implementing them.

Any questions about an article can be entered on the article's talk page. General questions about the wiki can be brought to [[Battlestar Wiki:Wikipedian Quorum|the Quorum]] or [[Battlestar Wiki:Administrators' noticeboard|the administrators' noticeboard]]. To sign your posts on any talk page, just enter four tildes (~~~~)!

We look forward to your contributions to the community!
--[[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 17:02, 25 March 2007 (CDT)

== Greetings ==

Hi there. I just read your response to my comments on the [[Propulsion (TOS)]] article and I was a bit put off. I apologize if you felt that you were personally slighted.

I am one of several administrators on Battlestar Wiki. Like on other wikis, that's not generally much in the way of important things, except we also act as mediators, moderators, and, sometimes, police. Please remember that, as wikis aren't chat boards, it's not appropriate to do point-by-point responses that edit other contributor's comments. Second, it is very important that you read the policies and practices of this wiki. We really love enthusiasm and fresh insight, but we have rules to conduct ourselves, and you have violated one: [[BW:CIVIL|please be civil]] in responding. I'll later reedit (or you can) the response accordingly and give you some thoughts another day. Thanks for your understanding. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 19:00, 25 March 2007 (CDT)

:3DMaster, I'm readding your comment on my talk page and my reply comes after.
:<blockquote>I wasn't aware I was being uncivil. I reread my comments, and only "LOL" and the question about knowing science might be so. The question however was just that, a question. The New Series "science" is as far removed from science as you can get, and article about the New Series FTL propulsion, quite frankly, is a mess. The article talks about how the shows producers keep it natural and chose something within science, as if other SF series and books don't; which is of course ridiculous. The whole point of SF is take something that is grounded in science; possibly make up some new science to circumvent something, but basically keep it grounded. It is not called ''Science'' Fiction for nothing. To say the nBSG is the only one who does this, is patently false. Then after saying how natural and non-gimmicky and possible it; one names the ultimate in gimmicky FTL technologies; heck the holy grail in FTL technologies.</blockquote>

:Neither ''Battlestar Galactica'' shows are [[w:hard science fiction|hard SF]], although the new show's creators attempted to define what SF cliches they would not do. Fans and contributors on Battlestar Wiki have their own ideas as to what is and isn't. To make this encyclopedia of fictional works as accurate as possible, however, it is important to stick to what information is given by the series creators to define its universe. Anything else is fanwanking: fans who apply their knowledge, feelings, or experience to what they see on-screen and, as a result, attempt to write show content. ''Battlestar'' in both incarnations has always concentrated on the characters and not the science (or pseudo-science). Again, if you have found a scientific aspect of the show that can be elaborated on AND you can cite your source, please feel free to update the page. For now, in order for the wiki to be worth anything, we can only define what the show's content provides, and not attempt to fill in the gaps through our own additions to the show. For more clarification, please read our [[BW:CJ|citation]] and [[BW:FANW|inappropriate speculation]] policies. It's important to note that your comment was more grousing than a "what" was wrong and "how" you could fix it. Wikis aren't complaint boards. You're encouraged to fix what you feel is an inaccurate entry, but just stay in our ground rules for sourcing, never adding more to an article than what the show's sparse data has provided. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 08:42, 28 March 2007 (CDT)

::And yet, the new Galactica's propulsion page, is nothing but inappropriate speculation without a single citation anywhere. And the source is the show itself. The lagrange point corridor is the only way the story of Gun on Ice Planet Zero makes any sense: the lagrange point is covered by that gun and thus there's no way for the Fleet to "simply go around" the planet or "stay far away from it". All other depictions of the show (always appearing in a solar system and immediately sending out patrols (and not sending out patrols before they arrive, and avoiding the system entirely if there are Cylons), and never seeing the ship in interstellar space builds a completely consistent view of Galactica's FTL capabilities (or lack thereof seeing as it just uses something that naturally exists.) The folding and wormhole bit is never stated on the nBSG, but it is the only logically conclusion from watching the show; the same with TOS. --[[User:3DMaster|3DMaster]] 05:35, 29 March 2007 (CDT)

Talk:Propulsion (TOS)/Archive 1

2007-03-29T10:30:50Z

3DMaster: /* FTL for real */

User talk:3DMaster

2007-03-29T10:02:47Z

3DMaster: /* Greetings */

Talk:Propulsion (TOS)/Archive 1

2007-03-28T11:31:09Z

3DMaster: /* TECR link */

Talk:Propulsion (TOS)/Archive 1

2007-03-28T11:07:44Z

3DMaster: /* TECR link */

Talk:Propulsion (TOS)/Archive 1

2007-03-27T23:56:55Z

3DMaster: /* TECR link */

User talk:Spencerian

2007-03-27T20:08:55Z

3DMaster: /* Response Greetings */

''For discussions prior to January 1, 2006, [http://battlestarwiki.org/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASpencerian&diff=21890&oldid=21664 click here.]''

''For discussions prior to June 1, 2006, [http://www.battlestarwiki.org/en/index.php?title=User_talk:Spencerian&oldid=60768 click here.]''

''For discussions prior to September 1, 2006, [http://en.battlestarwiki.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Spencerian&oldid=75116 click here.]''

''For discussions prior to December 18, 2006, [http://en.battlestarwiki.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Spencerian&oldid=93841 click here.]''

==Updated User Page==
I stole my revised article design from Mercifull, and is living proof that I can't wiki code worth a damn. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 21:04, 19 December 2006 (CST)
:He stole the design from me. Joe stole it from him. lol. Been going around. heh. [[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 21:14, 19 December 2006 (CST)
::It continues the rounds; I've "borrowed" now. =) [[User:JubalHarshaw|JubalHarshaw]] 23:04, 12 January 2007 (CST)

==Response to EoJ Reversion==

Hi, just wanted to drop a quick line regarding the rollback to the article summary. I posted a comment regarding it on the Talk page, but wanted to say that as it was written, it seems too narrative. Granted, my changes may have confused readers, but I feel it needs to be consolidated. What do you think? --[[User:Sgtpayne|Sgtpayne]] 12:26, 20 December 2006 (CST) ([[User_Talk:Sgtpayne|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Sgtpayne|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Sgtpayne|E]])

:Shane had a good idea. We could break it up into acts (commercial breaks) but we should keep the relative order. I'll give that a try if someone hasn't done so; I have the episode downloaded. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 18:03, 20 December 2006 (CST)

==Response from Meteor==
Hi you added something to my talk page recently. I just rewatched the scene in Kobol's Last Gleaming part 1 where Elosha, Billy and Roslin discuss Kobol. Billy says the ruins on the planet are 2,000 years old. Elosha responds that this corresponds with when the 13 (not 12) colonies left Kobol.

While I agree you're probably right about the 13th colony leaving for earth 3,600 years ago and the other 12 colonies only a mere 2,000 years I do think the article should reflect the fact that Elosha's comment is not entirely accurate. [[User:Meteor|Meteor]]

== Response from MatthewFenton regarding clean up ==

Hey. Responded at the talk page showing some concerns as to why I believe it needs a clean up - if you don't think it needs a clean up then feel free to remove the tag, I've shown my concerns at least, hopefully it can make the article better. [[User:MatthewFenton|MatthewFenton]] 17:39, 1 January 2007 (CST)

== Red Pill ==

[[Battlestar_Wiki:Requests_for_bureaucratship/Spencerian|Follow the "Yellow" Link]] [[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 12:46, 5 January 2007 (CST)
:Strange... it's not yellow for me. (Monobook has either blue or pinkish). --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 12:58, 5 January 2007 (CST)
::Aww...this is very cool, one way or another. I'll fill it in a little later today. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 13:15, 5 January 2007 (CST)

== Welcome, Young Padawan! ==

Congrats! Here's a [[w:Squeegee|Squeegee]], and [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Bureaucrats|some pertinent reading material from Wikipedia]]. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] 20:04, 13 January 2007 (CST)
:Have we seen a [[Squeegee Boy]] in BSG yet? :-) Congrats Spenc! [[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 20:07, 13 January 2007 (CST)
::Congrats man, you've earned it. --[[User:Talos|Talos]] 21:54, 13 January 2007 (CST)
::: Congratulations ;-) [[User:MatthewFenton|MatthewFenton]] 06:08, 14 January 2007 (CST)
:::: Congratulations! --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 08:06, 14 January 2007 (CST)
:::::Much obliged, everyone. Thanks. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 09:58, 14 January 2007 (CST)

== Thanks ==

Just wanted to thank you for the advice you left on my talk page, next time I'll try not to jump the gun without better researching.--[[User:The One True Fred|The One True Fred]] 08:00, 26 January 2007 (CST)
:We've all done it before, but its not much of a learning curve. Once you know what's probably rumor and what's good, it only makes contributing and reading things here that much more intriguing. Don't let it sway your enthusiasm! --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 08:05, 26 January 2007 (CST)

== Howdy ==

Are you a fan of the flying bikes of doom? [[User:MatthewFenton|MatthewFenton]] 04:44, 27 January 2007 (CST)
:Um, I have no idea what that is. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 08:10, 27 January 2007 (CST)
::"[[Flying motorcycle]]" I presume --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 08:12, 27 January 2007 (CST)
::: Galactica 1980 :-P [[User:MatthewFenton|MatthewFenton]] 08:22, 27 January 2007 (CST)
::::Oh, lords, no. It's only ten episodes, but because of its horror I blame it for my social inadequacies in high school, my acne, the heartbreak of psoriasis and global warming. Who can I sue? Is that Oprah calling...? --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 08:33, 27 January 2007 (CST)
:::::Also, FYI, Dr. Phil on line 5. --[[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] 08:59, 27 January 2007 (CST)

== The origin of mankind ==

I noticed a comment in my talk about why you removed notes about the real Earth as homeworld for Humanity some months ago, feeling they were fanwanking. At the same time you pointed to pages about the sacred scrolls and various fan theories about the Exodus or Exodi in the show. In order to learn, I wanted to understand the difference. Is it just where I put it? My goal was to add only factual information. While I realize that the Earth in the show is going to be somewhat fictionalized (if we ever see it) there is an important difference between an Earth that had a different history than ours, and one where the science is so different that you might as well say Mars had canals (a common SF trope from before the 60s) or that rocks fall up.

However, where is the proper place to speculate what theories of Earth are consistent with what the writers are trying to show us in the program? The question of whether, in the re-imagined series, Earth is a colony of Kobol, or instead Kobol is a colony of Earth (and why that was covered up) is an important one to the show, and there are a number of clues in the show pointing to the latter case. {{unsigned|Bradtem}}

:I agree that removing your comments while allowing the convoluted theories in [[Sacred Scrolls]] stand isn't right. It's either both or neither. And if I ever saw fanwank, that's it. I'm toying with the idea of deleting that eyesore and presenting both theories very briefly, but without going into much detail. In fact that's what I'm going to do now. I've already mentioned that on the talk page there as well. However, I don't think those theories should be expanded much further there, as they go beyond the scope of "Sacred Scrolls" --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 06:18, 1 February 2007 (CST)

::I tend to agree with Serenity, Bradtem. Obviously the writers want to play with the viewers and make the more "thoughtful" of us wonder about this chicken-and-egg origin. At the same time, they purposefully don't indicate if BSG occurs in real-world Earth's past, present or future. As a result, we shouldn't speculate in detail, thus the concision or removal of your contribution (my apologies as I can't remember the specific reasons and haven't time right now to delve through the history for review). As Serenity noted, we should touch on the possibilities, but we must not go into elaborate "hypotheses" about it as that is strictly fanwanking. A few short definitive notes based on what has aired, and we must leave the rest of the speculation to the talk pages of the article or the reader's imagination. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 08:02, 1 February 2007 (CST)
:::I think his confusion stems from the fact that you linked him to a page that contained far more baseless speculation than his [http://en.battlestarwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Earth&diff=prev&oldid=88518 relatively short addition] you removed. It looked like you removed something that was fine elsewhere. He didn't even really speculate, but presented a scientific fact. Personally I agree with it, and hate those "we don't really have to pay attention to science. They can do what they want" arguments. Of course there is the possibility of BSG taking place in an alternate universe which has also been hinted at in podcasts/interviews.
:::But as you said, that's a discussion more suitable for forums, and a short outline of each point of view probably suffices here. --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 08:25, 1 February 2007 (CST)
::::I understand now. Thanks for the clarification. The whole subject is too confusing, which means we're doing the right thing in concising it in the first place. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 08:46, 1 February 2007 (CST)
::While the theories and speculation may be fanwanks, tracking down the real clues found within the show that back up or refute speculations is a worthwhile function for a wiki, in my view. However, it does mean you probably need to make references to the theories to understand why a real canonical detail is important to note. For example, Adama calls the Lagoon Nebula by the name M8, which is an 18th century Earth designation. That's either a writing error or pretty hard evidence regarding theories of the origin of Kobol and the colonies in the show. Either way it's worth noting, and the context is important. Sometimes there isn't even a theory. Today you removed an addition to the article of the Temple of 5, where I noted that there are 6 drapes and 5 figures standing on 5 of them, one is vacant. I don't actually know what that means in terms of speculation, but it smells like it's important so I was surprised to see it removed. In addition, my addition of information on Tyrol's reluctance to destroy the temple is also, in my view, important -- Tyrol is demonstrably under some external influence when it comes to the temple, so again I think it's important to understanding the temple, not just to the story of the episode, though I don't yet know why and did not include any speculation as to why. I ask this because it's obviously no fun to contribute items just to have them reverted. I try to stick to facts and information from actual episodes when editing pages that are not meant for speculation. --[[User:Bradtem]]
:::Those are all things that can be added to the episode articles (generally under "Analysis"). The M8 thing is mentioned on [[Home, Part II]] example. --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 17:02, 1 February 2007 (CST)
::::I understand a desire not to repeat all the episode summaries in other places, but everything in an article about a special object or character is from some episode, so does it not make sense to include the key points to understanding the object in question in the article about it? It's a pretty fuzzy line, my view is that you really only want to roll back something that's false or a pointless addition. The line about M8, if it's not a writing error, for example, is arguably the most important clue given in the Temple of Athena scene about the nature of Earth. It would be odd to me to not repeat it both under the episode summary, but also in the pages on Earth and the Tomb. If somebody adds every single thing from an episode, that might be rolled back as redundant. But if they filter what they judge to be the most important things learned about something, that is, if done well, useful information so I would not roll it back.--[[User:Bradtem|Bradtem]] 15:53, 3 February 2007 (CST)
:::::I understand. There ''is'' a fuzziness to what we do as administrators and other contributors that have been here awhile. I apologize if the edits that we have done have been confusing, as a wiki, while trying to stick to guidelines and policies, can sometimes not enforce them properly, or in this case, may be enforcing too strictly. There are plenty of articles that overlap in content, like [[Battle of Ragnar Anchorage]] and [[33]]. The key is theme; the battle page details the strategic element only (no character analysis) while the episode summary is heavier on character and event information. False or overly speculative stuff is reverted as soon as we find it, but it's not really a "sin" to add episodic stuff to a item article, it's just less preferred to keep the article fully on topic. The M8 information, as you might know, is detailed in the notes of the Tomb of Athena article. I agree with your thoughts on it, and again I apologize if the situation has taken anything from the fun you get in enjoying the wiki. I'm assuming that I am wrong in this problem because, as a veteran contributor, we can get set in our ways sometimes. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 18:54, 3 February 2007 (CST)

== Superbowl ==

So colts fan, what's your plans for the big game? [[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 14:07, 1 February 2007 (CST)
:Not sure. A bunch of friends are throwing a party, so I thought I'd go and cheer (or cry) with them, show off my new work MacBook Pro laptop...stuff like that. This frakker ''rocks''... :) Anywho, our city is happy just to be in the Big Show; winning will be OK, but, prior to 1984, we normally sided with the Bears, so it's kinda win-win for everybody. Heard that we're vying to be the host for Super Bowl 45 in 2011... ha. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 14:26, 1 February 2007 (CST)
::The odds are in the colts favor... 7 to 1. [[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 15:29, 1 February 2007 (CST)
:::'''''GO COLTS.''''' --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 18:55, 3 February 2007 (CST)

:::::'''''COLTS WIN! COLTS WIN!''''' Wondering where Indianapolis is? See [[w:Indianapolis, Indiana|this link]]. I almost went on Wikipedia tonight to <s>vandalize</s>edit in "Home of the Super Bowl Champion Indianapolis Colts" to the page! --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 22:17, 4 February 2007 (CST)

:::::Very good game....I think. @ the Police "Party" there was a door prize @ the end. A '''''Sirus Satellite System'''''. What are the odds... I won! Both winnars tonight! :-)!!!! [[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 23:11, 4 February 2007 (CST)
::::::Are you Sirius?! :) Congrats, Shane! --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 07:31, 5 February 2007 (CST)
:::::::Yeah. Little travel one for the car. Wish it were an XM because I a bigger Baseball fan than Football, but this will be good for Football Season next year. Plus... I don't listen to a lot of music. Guess I have a larger selection now. [[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 12:05, 5 February 2007 (CST)
:::: I know where Chicago is and I know where the Dolphin Stadium is in FL. But I have no idea where in the US Indianapolis is ^_^. It's gotta be some make-belive city im sure. It conjours up images of [[w:Indy Racing League|Indy car]] racing tho, and an old TV show called [[w:Eerie, Indiana|Eerie, Indiana]] --[[User:Mercifull|Mercifull]] ([[User talk:Mercifull|Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Mercifull|Contribs]]) 08:06, 5 February 2007 (CST)

==Question==

Hi Spencerian. I made a boo boo yesterday and included a potential spoiler (marked with spoiler tag) about the final five in that article and not the talk page as I intended (Meteor need sleep...I could have sworn I put it into the discussion page). Should I move it or leave it where it is? I can understand if people don't want to see a spoiler in the actual article especially since it has yet to be confirmed. -Whatever everyone thinks is best...I didn't intend for it to be in the actual article. --[[User:Meteor|Meteor]] 05 February 2007.
:That's OK, we caught it. While not verified, it's still from a cast member, so we give it some slack but wrapped it in a spoiler tag. No worries. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 08:19, 6 February 2007 (CST)

== "cylon conspiracy" analisys ==

Hi,
I removed my "cylon conspiracy" Analysis from Epiphanies article (About the cylons causing Roslin's cancer).
[[http://en.battlestarwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Epiphanies&oldid=106852]]
I moved it to the discussion. I still think it is good, but I haven't watched all the series including Torn. This is why I would not like to go into the argument now, so I won't find out any spoilers.
Thanks. --[[User:Cyborg|Cyborg]] 10:55, 6 February 2007 (CST)

:Sure thing, Cyborg. ''Battlestar'' takes a lot of work to track all the stuff going down, so it's no biggie. I'll try not to spoil any more for you. :) --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 10:58, 6 February 2007 (CST)

== Epiphanies "why did altar save Roslin analysis" ==

You removed my question from Epiphanies article. Your answer to me was valuable and was not on the article, so I added it as an analysis.
http://en.battlestarwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Epiphanies&oldid=106884
--[[User:Cyborg|Cyborg]] 11:23, 6 February 2007 (CST)
:Good idea! --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 11:27, 6 February 2007 (CST)

== Podcast Cite ==
The extended editing session podcast will likely not reside in the "Podcast:A Day in the Life" spot, as that spot will likely hold the "regular" podcast (which will hopefully be released someday). As for the naming of the extended podcast... I don't have any strong opinions. I guess whatever the poor schmuck who has to transcribe it wants to call it. I saw your recent addition to [[Seelix]], but didn't want to step on your toes. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 14:23, 22 February 2007 (CST)
:I'm listening to it right now, all 2+ hours of it. Lots of interesting stuff that I'm jotting down for later inclusion. Yes, that one's going to be a super bitch to transcribe. Another summer project, probably. I bet we won't have another one; Ron just got tired or had schedule conflict and thought something different would be good. I'll delink it for now. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 14:26, 22 February 2007 (CST)
::We've really been lucky to have all the regular podcasts be as timely as they have. On the other side of the coin, though, it does save RDM time on the DVD side as they apparently package that up as the DVD commentary so at least they don't have to back into the studio later. I'm definitely a fan of getting the commentary captured as close to production time as possible, as the longer you wait the more chances you have to forget all the really interesting details. I still wish he would have "gone back" and done one for "[[Fragged]]", but wishes and fishes (and whatnot). Maybe he'll do a double-header for this week with this week's episode (doing both podcasts back to back). Scifi.com still claims it will be posted later this week... we'll see if they're true to their word. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 14:50, 22 February 2007 (CST)
:::If someone gets me a link to that extended podcast, I'll be the poor schmuck and make it my holiday project (I've got next week off). --[[User:Catrope|Catrope]] 15:51, 22 February 2007 (CST)
Hallelujah! Podcasts for "A Day in the Life" AND "Dirty Hands" are up. I'm starting into the "Day in the Life". Check out the "Yellow Submarine" link for an interesting Scotch story. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 07:50, 27 February 2007 (CST)
:Good. I'll just continue transcribing the bonus podcast. --[[User:Catrope|Catrope]] 12:13, 27 February 2007 (CST)

== Athena not wearing a spacesuit ==

I answered your delete in the discussion:
[http://en.battlestarwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:A_Measure_of_Salvation&oldid=109483]
--[[User:Cyborg|Cyborg]] 10:20, 23 February 2007 (CST)

== Thanks for the welcome ==

Are you familiar with Thomas Merton? He was a Catholic monk who explored the convergences between Catholicism and Zen Buddhism. I think you'd enjoy his work. [[User:Jeet|Jeet]] 15:47, 7 March 2007 (CST)
:Hi, Jeet. I've heard of him. Been reading a book from a Buddhist monk that knew him and also speaks about those convergences. It's a very interesting supplement to becoming Catholic...a wild ride. :) Have fun on the wiki! --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 20:55, 7 March 2007 (CST)

== Maelstrom podcast ==
Mind if I steal back the Maelstrom teaser transcription? With ZarekRocks finishing up TSAR, I could probably finish the Maelstrom podcast today. I don't want to step on your toes if you've already started on it, but if you haven't had a chance to get to it yet I might as well finish that one out. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 07:30, 16 March 2007 (CDT)
:Please do. I'm completely unable to do it in the time I hoped. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 08:27, 16 March 2007 (CDT)

== F-5 ==

I do not [http://en.battlestarwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Final_five&diff=114289&oldid=114277 understand] why you rolled back my edit to the F-5 page? As I stated in my edit summary they are viewable in high-def.. [[User:MatthewFenton|MatthewFenton]] 18:35, 24 March 2007 (CDT)
:Sorry. It wasn't clear what you were implying about what you saw, and given the mysterious nature of the subject and the contentious debate of the photos, I didn't want to reopen the debate. What high-definition shots were you referring to, and (without noting who) could you recognize familiar faces? In any case, the promo picture couldn't be the same people, thus my original change. A little more clarification's needed. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 20:34, 24 March 2007 (CDT)
::Over here in the UK we air BSG in hi-def, see time-frame 31:00 to 31:20, you'll see #2s chin, you see #5s fingers and the out-line of #4s face and you see #5s lips, I can upload some screen captures if you'd like. [[User:MatthewFenton|MatthewFenton]] 05:21, 25 March 2007 (CDT)
:::I understand. I think what others who had contributed in the article were trying to infer the ''identities'' of the figures from the promo shot, and not so much the physical details. Given that, if you have some good screenshots of, say, Three interacting with one of the five in "Rapture," then it would be a good addition, in my opinion. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 06:46, 25 March 2007 (CDT)

== 1900x1200 resolution.... ==

wow. ;-) on the desktop. There were to problems during the build. 1) There was a missing thred nut from one of the holders, 2) the sata cables the came with the mobo are to short to reach where the harddrive pins are. Using the "designated" primary hard drive on top of a box with a static free paper right now so I could install vista. ;-) Wried thing though... in the RAM it says 3.25GB not 4GB. Typo or do you think it's the BIOS on the mobo? I also installed all the "primary" drivers and applications on the C: partition so everything is together. After this... things start going on the D partition, which is also 250GB. [[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 07:13, 25 March 2007 (CDT)
:Probably some limitation between your motherboard and OS to address all the memory. It's normal with WindowsXP, but should work in Vista I think --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 07:36, 25 March 2007 (CDT)
::XP 32-bit cannot address more than 4GB of memory. You may want to edit your boot.ini file with '/3GB' switch, which will force windows to use the memory from 3 to 4gb for itself and keep the lower 3GB for applications. You may also want to check out Windows XP x86-64 Edition, which is what i run, simply because it can address 128gb of memory and potentially 16TB. It's a lot faster than the 32-bit version as well...9 second boot time on mine :) --[[User:Fordsierra4x4|Fordsierra4x4]] 07:50, 25 March 2007 (CDT)

== Response Greetings ==

You placed a comment in my talk page, about my additions in TOS Propulsion.

I wasn't aware I was being uncivil. I reread my comments, and only "LOL" and the question about knowing science might be so. The question however was just that, a question. The New Series "science" is as far removed from science as you can get, and article about the New Series FTL propulsion, quite frankly, is a mess. The article talks about how the shows producers keep it natural and chose something within science, as if other SF series and books don't; which is of course ridiculous. The whole point of SF is take something that is grounded in science; possibly make up some new science to circumvent something, but basically keep it grounded. It is not called ''Science'' Fiction for nothing. To say the nBSG is the only one who does this, is patently false. Then after saying how natural and non-gimmicky and possible it; one names the ultimate in gimmicky FTL technologies; heck the holy grail in FTL technologies.

e.g. A warp drive (which is an actual scientific theory right down to the math involved actually), requires one to bend space-time only locally around your ship. The nBSG fold drive requires one to take the destination, however far away, bend everything in between around a middle axis until the two points are about close, smash a hole space-time, make it stable for something to pass through, and that which passes through it, has to be shielded enough from the maelstrom of space-time destroying energies to survive. Star Trek's Federation can't do it. They can't fold space, although they have met two races that can, and can't create a stable wormhole. They created a wormhole once, but the moment they sent a probe into it, the wormhole collapsed. It is the ultimate, most advanced, holy grail in FTL technologies; the comparatively primitives of the nBSG can do, what the far more advanced Federation can't.

What has that got to do with the article and my comments? Simple; the whole article talks about the TOS and its creators being loose and never explaining anything; yet nBSG has never explained the jump drive in show either. The original Star Trek never got to show the ship going to warp because of SFX and budgetary constraints, it doesn't seem to get slammed as science fantasy and being loose with science; yet TOS BSG does. The producers may have done so outside of the show, I don't know, but back then, there was no internet, and nobody had any access to the show's creators, and they never got to explain things they couldn't, or wouldn't for whatever reason, put inside the show, making the scientific explanation in nBSG forum pretty much one big fan speculation... without links to sources either direct explanation in show, or explanation by the producers I might ad.

Of course, when I rightly wonder if a change to the article to far better reflect the original series FTL, I'm asked to provide absolute proof that this is so from creators and link it in the article; while the nBSG article about its propulsion doesn't have to apparently; or produce an exact motivation why; which before I even write is, is tossed aside as "fanwank". Which is measuring with two standards; don't you think? Or in short; a change will indeed will not be appreciated; which makes me wonder why TOS fans are asked to help with filling out the TOS articles if any changes and additions made will be deleted as either fanwank or having no evidence because the creators couldn't sit down and write internet articles back then.

I'll just add a link to a TOS tech manual site on its propulsion. --[[User:3DMaster|3DMaster]] 14:37, 27 March 2007 (CDT)

User talk:Spencerian

2007-03-27T19:52:33Z

3DMaster: Response Greetings

''For discussions prior to January 1, 2006, [http://battlestarwiki.org/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASpencerian&diff=21890&oldid=21664 click here.]''

''For discussions prior to June 1, 2006, [http://www.battlestarwiki.org/en/index.php?title=User_talk:Spencerian&oldid=60768 click here.]''

''For discussions prior to September 1, 2006, [http://en.battlestarwiki.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Spencerian&oldid=75116 click here.]''

''For discussions prior to December 18, 2006, [http://en.battlestarwiki.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Spencerian&oldid=93841 click here.]''

==Updated User Page==
I stole my revised article design from Mercifull, and is living proof that I can't wiki code worth a damn. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 21:04, 19 December 2006 (CST)
:He stole the design from me. Joe stole it from him. lol. Been going around. heh. [[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 21:14, 19 December 2006 (CST)
::It continues the rounds; I've "borrowed" now. =) [[User:JubalHarshaw|JubalHarshaw]] 23:04, 12 January 2007 (CST)

==Response to EoJ Reversion==

Hi, just wanted to drop a quick line regarding the rollback to the article summary. I posted a comment regarding it on the Talk page, but wanted to say that as it was written, it seems too narrative. Granted, my changes may have confused readers, but I feel it needs to be consolidated. What do you think? --[[User:Sgtpayne|Sgtpayne]] 12:26, 20 December 2006 (CST) ([[User_Talk:Sgtpayne|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Sgtpayne|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Sgtpayne|E]])

:Shane had a good idea. We could break it up into acts (commercial breaks) but we should keep the relative order. I'll give that a try if someone hasn't done so; I have the episode downloaded. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 18:03, 20 December 2006 (CST)

==Response from Meteor==
Hi you added something to my talk page recently. I just rewatched the scene in Kobol's Last Gleaming part 1 where Elosha, Billy and Roslin discuss Kobol. Billy says the ruins on the planet are 2,000 years old. Elosha responds that this corresponds with when the 13 (not 12) colonies left Kobol.

While I agree you're probably right about the 13th colony leaving for earth 3,600 years ago and the other 12 colonies only a mere 2,000 years I do think the article should reflect the fact that Elosha's comment is not entirely accurate. [[User:Meteor|Meteor]]

== Response from MatthewFenton regarding clean up ==

Hey. Responded at the talk page showing some concerns as to why I believe it needs a clean up - if you don't think it needs a clean up then feel free to remove the tag, I've shown my concerns at least, hopefully it can make the article better. [[User:MatthewFenton|MatthewFenton]] 17:39, 1 January 2007 (CST)

== Red Pill ==

[[Battlestar_Wiki:Requests_for_bureaucratship/Spencerian|Follow the "Yellow" Link]] [[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 12:46, 5 January 2007 (CST)
:Strange... it's not yellow for me. (Monobook has either blue or pinkish). --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 12:58, 5 January 2007 (CST)
::Aww...this is very cool, one way or another. I'll fill it in a little later today. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 13:15, 5 January 2007 (CST)

== Welcome, Young Padawan! ==

Congrats! Here's a [[w:Squeegee|Squeegee]], and [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Bureaucrats|some pertinent reading material from Wikipedia]]. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] 20:04, 13 January 2007 (CST)
:Have we seen a [[Squeegee Boy]] in BSG yet? :-) Congrats Spenc! [[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 20:07, 13 January 2007 (CST)
::Congrats man, you've earned it. --[[User:Talos|Talos]] 21:54, 13 January 2007 (CST)
::: Congratulations ;-) [[User:MatthewFenton|MatthewFenton]] 06:08, 14 January 2007 (CST)
:::: Congratulations! --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 08:06, 14 January 2007 (CST)
:::::Much obliged, everyone. Thanks. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 09:58, 14 January 2007 (CST)

== Thanks ==

Just wanted to thank you for the advice you left on my talk page, next time I'll try not to jump the gun without better researching.--[[User:The One True Fred|The One True Fred]] 08:00, 26 January 2007 (CST)
:We've all done it before, but its not much of a learning curve. Once you know what's probably rumor and what's good, it only makes contributing and reading things here that much more intriguing. Don't let it sway your enthusiasm! --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 08:05, 26 January 2007 (CST)

== Howdy ==

Are you a fan of the flying bikes of doom? [[User:MatthewFenton|MatthewFenton]] 04:44, 27 January 2007 (CST)
:Um, I have no idea what that is. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 08:10, 27 January 2007 (CST)
::"[[Flying motorcycle]]" I presume --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 08:12, 27 January 2007 (CST)
::: Galactica 1980 :-P [[User:MatthewFenton|MatthewFenton]] 08:22, 27 January 2007 (CST)
::::Oh, lords, no. It's only ten episodes, but because of its horror I blame it for my social inadequacies in high school, my acne, the heartbreak of psoriasis and global warming. Who can I sue? Is that Oprah calling...? --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 08:33, 27 January 2007 (CST)
:::::Also, FYI, Dr. Phil on line 5. --[[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] 08:59, 27 January 2007 (CST)

== The origin of mankind ==

I noticed a comment in my talk about why you removed notes about the real Earth as homeworld for Humanity some months ago, feeling they were fanwanking. At the same time you pointed to pages about the sacred scrolls and various fan theories about the Exodus or Exodi in the show. In order to learn, I wanted to understand the difference. Is it just where I put it? My goal was to add only factual information. While I realize that the Earth in the show is going to be somewhat fictionalized (if we ever see it) there is an important difference between an Earth that had a different history than ours, and one where the science is so different that you might as well say Mars had canals (a common SF trope from before the 60s) or that rocks fall up.

However, where is the proper place to speculate what theories of Earth are consistent with what the writers are trying to show us in the program? The question of whether, in the re-imagined series, Earth is a colony of Kobol, or instead Kobol is a colony of Earth (and why that was covered up) is an important one to the show, and there are a number of clues in the show pointing to the latter case. {{unsigned|Bradtem}}

:I agree that removing your comments while allowing the convoluted theories in [[Sacred Scrolls]] stand isn't right. It's either both or neither. And if I ever saw fanwank, that's it. I'm toying with the idea of deleting that eyesore and presenting both theories very briefly, but without going into much detail. In fact that's what I'm going to do now. I've already mentioned that on the talk page there as well. However, I don't think those theories should be expanded much further there, as they go beyond the scope of "Sacred Scrolls" --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 06:18, 1 February 2007 (CST)

::I tend to agree with Serenity, Bradtem. Obviously the writers want to play with the viewers and make the more "thoughtful" of us wonder about this chicken-and-egg origin. At the same time, they purposefully don't indicate if BSG occurs in real-world Earth's past, present or future. As a result, we shouldn't speculate in detail, thus the concision or removal of your contribution (my apologies as I can't remember the specific reasons and haven't time right now to delve through the history for review). As Serenity noted, we should touch on the possibilities, but we must not go into elaborate "hypotheses" about it as that is strictly fanwanking. A few short definitive notes based on what has aired, and we must leave the rest of the speculation to the talk pages of the article or the reader's imagination. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 08:02, 1 February 2007 (CST)
:::I think his confusion stems from the fact that you linked him to a page that contained far more baseless speculation than his [http://en.battlestarwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Earth&diff=prev&oldid=88518 relatively short addition] you removed. It looked like you removed something that was fine elsewhere. He didn't even really speculate, but presented a scientific fact. Personally I agree with it, and hate those "we don't really have to pay attention to science. They can do what they want" arguments. Of course there is the possibility of BSG taking place in an alternate universe which has also been hinted at in podcasts/interviews.
:::But as you said, that's a discussion more suitable for forums, and a short outline of each point of view probably suffices here. --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 08:25, 1 February 2007 (CST)
::::I understand now. Thanks for the clarification. The whole subject is too confusing, which means we're doing the right thing in concising it in the first place. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 08:46, 1 February 2007 (CST)
::While the theories and speculation may be fanwanks, tracking down the real clues found within the show that back up or refute speculations is a worthwhile function for a wiki, in my view. However, it does mean you probably need to make references to the theories to understand why a real canonical detail is important to note. For example, Adama calls the Lagoon Nebula by the name M8, which is an 18th century Earth designation. That's either a writing error or pretty hard evidence regarding theories of the origin of Kobol and the colonies in the show. Either way it's worth noting, and the context is important. Sometimes there isn't even a theory. Today you removed an addition to the article of the Temple of 5, where I noted that there are 6 drapes and 5 figures standing on 5 of them, one is vacant. I don't actually know what that means in terms of speculation, but it smells like it's important so I was surprised to see it removed. In addition, my addition of information on Tyrol's reluctance to destroy the temple is also, in my view, important -- Tyrol is demonstrably under some external influence when it comes to the temple, so again I think it's important to understanding the temple, not just to the story of the episode, though I don't yet know why and did not include any speculation as to why. I ask this because it's obviously no fun to contribute items just to have them reverted. I try to stick to facts and information from actual episodes when editing pages that are not meant for speculation. --[[User:Bradtem]]
:::Those are all things that can be added to the episode articles (generally under "Analysis"). The M8 thing is mentioned on [[Home, Part II]] example. --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 17:02, 1 February 2007 (CST)
::::I understand a desire not to repeat all the episode summaries in other places, but everything in an article about a special object or character is from some episode, so does it not make sense to include the key points to understanding the object in question in the article about it? It's a pretty fuzzy line, my view is that you really only want to roll back something that's false or a pointless addition. The line about M8, if it's not a writing error, for example, is arguably the most important clue given in the Temple of Athena scene about the nature of Earth. It would be odd to me to not repeat it both under the episode summary, but also in the pages on Earth and the Tomb. If somebody adds every single thing from an episode, that might be rolled back as redundant. But if they filter what they judge to be the most important things learned about something, that is, if done well, useful information so I would not roll it back.--[[User:Bradtem|Bradtem]] 15:53, 3 February 2007 (CST)
:::::I understand. There ''is'' a fuzziness to what we do as administrators and other contributors that have been here awhile. I apologize if the edits that we have done have been confusing, as a wiki, while trying to stick to guidelines and policies, can sometimes not enforce them properly, or in this case, may be enforcing too strictly. There are plenty of articles that overlap in content, like [[Battle of Ragnar Anchorage]] and [[33]]. The key is theme; the battle page details the strategic element only (no character analysis) while the episode summary is heavier on character and event information. False or overly speculative stuff is reverted as soon as we find it, but it's not really a "sin" to add episodic stuff to a item article, it's just less preferred to keep the article fully on topic. The M8 information, as you might know, is detailed in the notes of the Tomb of Athena article. I agree with your thoughts on it, and again I apologize if the situation has taken anything from the fun you get in enjoying the wiki. I'm assuming that I am wrong in this problem because, as a veteran contributor, we can get set in our ways sometimes. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 18:54, 3 February 2007 (CST)

== Superbowl ==

So colts fan, what's your plans for the big game? [[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 14:07, 1 February 2007 (CST)
:Not sure. A bunch of friends are throwing a party, so I thought I'd go and cheer (or cry) with them, show off my new work MacBook Pro laptop...stuff like that. This frakker ''rocks''... :) Anywho, our city is happy just to be in the Big Show; winning will be OK, but, prior to 1984, we normally sided with the Bears, so it's kinda win-win for everybody. Heard that we're vying to be the host for Super Bowl 45 in 2011... ha. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 14:26, 1 February 2007 (CST)
::The odds are in the colts favor... 7 to 1. [[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 15:29, 1 February 2007 (CST)
:::'''''GO COLTS.''''' --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 18:55, 3 February 2007 (CST)

:::::'''''COLTS WIN! COLTS WIN!''''' Wondering where Indianapolis is? See [[w:Indianapolis, Indiana|this link]]. I almost went on Wikipedia tonight to <s>vandalize</s>edit in "Home of the Super Bowl Champion Indianapolis Colts" to the page! --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 22:17, 4 February 2007 (CST)

:::::Very good game....I think. @ the Police "Party" there was a door prize @ the end. A '''''Sirus Satellite System'''''. What are the odds... I won! Both winnars tonight! :-)!!!! [[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 23:11, 4 February 2007 (CST)
::::::Are you Sirius?! :) Congrats, Shane! --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 07:31, 5 February 2007 (CST)
:::::::Yeah. Little travel one for the car. Wish it were an XM because I a bigger Baseball fan than Football, but this will be good for Football Season next year. Plus... I don't listen to a lot of music. Guess I have a larger selection now. [[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 12:05, 5 February 2007 (CST)
:::: I know where Chicago is and I know where the Dolphin Stadium is in FL. But I have no idea where in the US Indianapolis is ^_^. It's gotta be some make-belive city im sure. It conjours up images of [[w:Indy Racing League|Indy car]] racing tho, and an old TV show called [[w:Eerie, Indiana|Eerie, Indiana]] --[[User:Mercifull|Mercifull]] ([[User talk:Mercifull|Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Mercifull|Contribs]]) 08:06, 5 February 2007 (CST)

==Question==

Hi Spencerian. I made a boo boo yesterday and included a potential spoiler (marked with spoiler tag) about the final five in that article and not the talk page as I intended (Meteor need sleep...I could have sworn I put it into the discussion page). Should I move it or leave it where it is? I can understand if people don't want to see a spoiler in the actual article especially since it has yet to be confirmed. -Whatever everyone thinks is best...I didn't intend for it to be in the actual article. --[[User:Meteor|Meteor]] 05 February 2007.
:That's OK, we caught it. While not verified, it's still from a cast member, so we give it some slack but wrapped it in a spoiler tag. No worries. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 08:19, 6 February 2007 (CST)

== "cylon conspiracy" analisys ==

Hi,
I removed my "cylon conspiracy" Analysis from Epiphanies article (About the cylons causing Roslin's cancer).
[[http://en.battlestarwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Epiphanies&oldid=106852]]
I moved it to the discussion. I still think it is good, but I haven't watched all the series including Torn. This is why I would not like to go into the argument now, so I won't find out any spoilers.
Thanks. --[[User:Cyborg|Cyborg]] 10:55, 6 February 2007 (CST)

:Sure thing, Cyborg. ''Battlestar'' takes a lot of work to track all the stuff going down, so it's no biggie. I'll try not to spoil any more for you. :) --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 10:58, 6 February 2007 (CST)

== Epiphanies "why did altar save Roslin analysis" ==

You removed my question from Epiphanies article. Your answer to me was valuable and was not on the article, so I added it as an analysis.
http://en.battlestarwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Epiphanies&oldid=106884
--[[User:Cyborg|Cyborg]] 11:23, 6 February 2007 (CST)
:Good idea! --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 11:27, 6 February 2007 (CST)

== Podcast Cite ==
The extended editing session podcast will likely not reside in the "Podcast:A Day in the Life" spot, as that spot will likely hold the "regular" podcast (which will hopefully be released someday). As for the naming of the extended podcast... I don't have any strong opinions. I guess whatever the poor schmuck who has to transcribe it wants to call it. I saw your recent addition to [[Seelix]], but didn't want to step on your toes. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 14:23, 22 February 2007 (CST)
:I'm listening to it right now, all 2+ hours of it. Lots of interesting stuff that I'm jotting down for later inclusion. Yes, that one's going to be a super bitch to transcribe. Another summer project, probably. I bet we won't have another one; Ron just got tired or had schedule conflict and thought something different would be good. I'll delink it for now. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 14:26, 22 February 2007 (CST)
::We've really been lucky to have all the regular podcasts be as timely as they have. On the other side of the coin, though, it does save RDM time on the DVD side as they apparently package that up as the DVD commentary so at least they don't have to back into the studio later. I'm definitely a fan of getting the commentary captured as close to production time as possible, as the longer you wait the more chances you have to forget all the really interesting details. I still wish he would have "gone back" and done one for "[[Fragged]]", but wishes and fishes (and whatnot). Maybe he'll do a double-header for this week with this week's episode (doing both podcasts back to back). Scifi.com still claims it will be posted later this week... we'll see if they're true to their word. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 14:50, 22 February 2007 (CST)
:::If someone gets me a link to that extended podcast, I'll be the poor schmuck and make it my holiday project (I've got next week off). --[[User:Catrope|Catrope]] 15:51, 22 February 2007 (CST)
Hallelujah! Podcasts for "A Day in the Life" AND "Dirty Hands" are up. I'm starting into the "Day in the Life". Check out the "Yellow Submarine" link for an interesting Scotch story. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 07:50, 27 February 2007 (CST)
:Good. I'll just continue transcribing the bonus podcast. --[[User:Catrope|Catrope]] 12:13, 27 February 2007 (CST)

== Athena not wearing a spacesuit ==

I answered your delete in the discussion:
[http://en.battlestarwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:A_Measure_of_Salvation&oldid=109483]
--[[User:Cyborg|Cyborg]] 10:20, 23 February 2007 (CST)

== Thanks for the welcome ==

Are you familiar with Thomas Merton? He was a Catholic monk who explored the convergences between Catholicism and Zen Buddhism. I think you'd enjoy his work. [[User:Jeet|Jeet]] 15:47, 7 March 2007 (CST)
:Hi, Jeet. I've heard of him. Been reading a book from a Buddhist monk that knew him and also speaks about those convergences. It's a very interesting supplement to becoming Catholic...a wild ride. :) Have fun on the wiki! --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 20:55, 7 March 2007 (CST)

== Maelstrom podcast ==
Mind if I steal back the Maelstrom teaser transcription? With ZarekRocks finishing up TSAR, I could probably finish the Maelstrom podcast today. I don't want to step on your toes if you've already started on it, but if you haven't had a chance to get to it yet I might as well finish that one out. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 07:30, 16 March 2007 (CDT)
:Please do. I'm completely unable to do it in the time I hoped. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 08:27, 16 March 2007 (CDT)

== F-5 ==

I do not [http://en.battlestarwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Final_five&diff=114289&oldid=114277 understand] why you rolled back my edit to the F-5 page? As I stated in my edit summary they are viewable in high-def.. [[User:MatthewFenton|MatthewFenton]] 18:35, 24 March 2007 (CDT)
:Sorry. It wasn't clear what you were implying about what you saw, and given the mysterious nature of the subject and the contentious debate of the photos, I didn't want to reopen the debate. What high-definition shots were you referring to, and (without noting who) could you recognize familiar faces? In any case, the promo picture couldn't be the same people, thus my original change. A little more clarification's needed. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 20:34, 24 March 2007 (CDT)
::Over here in the UK we air BSG in hi-def, see time-frame 31:00 to 31:20, you'll see #2s chin, you see #5s fingers and the out-line of #4s face and you see #5s lips, I can upload some screen captures if you'd like. [[User:MatthewFenton|MatthewFenton]] 05:21, 25 March 2007 (CDT)
:::I understand. I think what others who had contributed in the article were trying to infer the ''identities'' of the figures from the promo shot, and not so much the physical details. Given that, if you have some good screenshots of, say, Three interacting with one of the five in "Rapture," then it would be a good addition, in my opinion. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 06:46, 25 March 2007 (CDT)

== 1900x1200 resolution.... ==

wow. ;-) on the desktop. There were to problems during the build. 1) There was a missing thred nut from one of the holders, 2) the sata cables the came with the mobo are to short to reach where the harddrive pins are. Using the "designated" primary hard drive on top of a box with a static free paper right now so I could install vista. ;-) Wried thing though... in the RAM it says 3.25GB not 4GB. Typo or do you think it's the BIOS on the mobo? I also installed all the "primary" drivers and applications on the C: partition so everything is together. After this... things start going on the D partition, which is also 250GB. [[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 07:13, 25 March 2007 (CDT)
:Probably some limitation between your motherboard and OS to address all the memory. It's normal with WindowsXP, but should work in Vista I think --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 07:36, 25 March 2007 (CDT)
::XP 32-bit cannot address more than 4GB of memory. You may want to edit your boot.ini file with '/3GB' switch, which will force windows to use the memory from 3 to 4gb for itself and keep the lower 3GB for applications. You may also want to check out Windows XP x86-64 Edition, which is what i run, simply because it can address 128gb of memory and potentially 16TB. It's a lot faster than the 32-bit version as well...9 second boot time on mine :) --[[User:Fordsierra4x4|Fordsierra4x4]] 07:50, 25 March 2007 (CDT)

== Response Greetings ==

I wasn't aware I was being uncivil. I reread my comments, and only "LOL" and the question about knowing science might be so. The question however was just that, a question. The New Series "science" is as far removed from science as you can get, and article about the New Series FTL propulsion, quite frankly, is a mess. The article talks about how the shows producers keep it natural and chose something within science, as if other SF series and books don't; which is of course ridiculous. The whole point of SF is take something that is grounded in science; possibly make up some new science to circumvent something, but basically keep it grounded. It is not called ''Science'' Fiction for nothing. To say the nBSG is the only one who does this, is patently false. Then after saying how natural and non-gimmicky and possible it; one names the ultimate in gimmicky FTL technologies; heck the holy grail in FTL technologies.

e.g. A warp drive (which is an actual scientific theory right down to the math involved actually), requires one to bend space-time only locally around your ship. The nBSG fold drive requires one to take the destination, however far away, bend everything in between around a middle axis until the two points are about close, smash a hole space-time, make it stable for something to pass through, and that which passes through it, has to be shielded enough from the maelstrom of space-time destroying energies to survive. Star Trek's Federation can't do it. They can't fold space, although they have met two races that can, and can't create a stable wormhole. They created a wormhole once, but the moment they sent a probe into it, the wormhole collapsed. It is the ultimate, most advanced, holy grail in FTL technologies; the comparatively primitives of the nBSG can do, what the far more advanced Federation can't.

What has that got to do with the article and my comments? Simple; the whole article talks about the TOS and its creators being loose and never explaining anything; yet nBSG has never explained the jump drive in show either. The original Star Trek never got to show the ship going to warp because of SFX and budgetary constraints, it doesn't seem to get slammed as science fantasy and being loose with science; yet TOS BSG does. The producers may have done so outside of the show, I don't know, but back then, there was no internet, and nobody had any access to the show's creators, and they never got to explain things they couldn't, or wouldn't for whatever reason, put inside the show, making the scientific explanation in nBSG forum pretty much one big fan speculation... without links to sources either direct explanation in show, or explanation by the producers I might ad.

Of course, when I rightly wonder if a change to the article to far better reflect the original series FTL, I'm asked to provide absolute proof that this is so from creators and link it in the article; while the nBSG article about its propulsion doesn't have to apparently; or produce an exact motivation why; which before I even write is, is tossed aside as "fanwank". Which is measuring with two standards; don't you think? Or in short; a change will indeed will not be appreciated; which makes me wonder why TOS fans are asked to help with filling out the TOS articles if any changes and additions made will be deleted as either fanwank or having no evidence because the creators couldn't sit down and write internet articles back then.

I'll just add a link to a TOS tech manual site on its propulsion. --[[User:3DMaster|3DMaster]] 14:37, 27 March 2007 (CDT)

Propulsion (TOS)

2007-03-27T19:41:12Z

3DMaster:

:''For the propulsion counterparts in the [[Battlestar Galactica (RDM)|Re-imagined Series]], see [[Propulsion in the Re-imagined Series]].''

In the [[Original Series]], the [[The Fleet (TOS)|Fleet]] moves seemingly only at ''sublight'' speeds. There are inferences to FTL use though, even if sporadic and uncertain.

''Lightspeed'' is the term for a Colonial [[Battlestar (TOS)|battlestar]] accelerating to the speed of light or faster. ''Galactica'' is one of the few ships in the rag-tag [[The Fleet (TOS)|Fleet]] that have lightspeed ability, so normally the battlestar moves no faster than the slowest ship in the Fleet during its exodus from the destroyed [[The Twelve Colonies (TOS)|Twelve Colonies]] ([[Lost Planet of the Gods, Part I]]).

It is rarely mentioned, but beyond the following references, FTL is inferred several times in the original ''Battlestar Galatica''. Even just the mention of leaving star systems (possibly mentioned inaccurately as 'galaxies') and showing up in other star systems within short periods of time, lead one to suspect that some form of superluminal propulsion is employed.

* Commander [[Cain (TOS)|Cain]] brings ''[[Pegasus (TOS)|Pegasus]]'' to lightspeed in order to outflank [[Baltar (TOS)|Baltar]]'s attack force, though Cain earlier commented that such a maneuver would result in using half of ''Pegasus'''s fuel ([[The Living Legend, Part I]]).

* Commander [[Adama (TOS)|Adama]] orders Colonel [[Tigh (TOS)|Tigh]] to take ''[[Galactica (TOS)|Galactica]]'' to lightspeed, despite Tigh's objections that suggest that it had been some time since the battlestar was ordered to accelerate that fast ([[Experiment in Terra]]).

* [[Baltar (TOS)|Baltar]] and [[Lucifer]] have a conversation in which Lucifer states that the Cylons could easily catch up to the slowly moving rag-tag Fleet if they used lightspeed ([[Lost Planet of the Gods, Part I]]).

* Starbuck's Viper "[[Starchaser|Recon 1]]" could be inferred to be able attain this lightspeed as well, as it has to drop to sub-light when it detects a freighter and fighter ([[The Long Patrol]]).

Other than these oblique references, there is nothing that would substantiate how the ships achieve this form of propulsion other than by just accelerating until they reach their top speed.

==Links==

[http://www.tecr.com/galactica/engines/engines.htm Classic Battlestar Galactica tech manual, engine section.]

==Notes==

*While the Re-imagined Series attempts to ground its technology to plausible theories regarding [[FTL|apparent FTL]] travel, the Original Series is less scientific. The mechanism and theory of lightspeed travel in the Original Series is never explained.

*Given that the [[The Fleet (TOS)|Fleet]] and Vipers regularly visit other star systems and even a few [[Battle at Galaxy's Edge|references]] to flying to other galaxies, it's scientifically implausible that the Fleet only moves at sublight speeds. Even at a large fraction of the speed of light, traveling from one star system to another would take years or even decades. Flying to another galaxy is impossible within a human lifetime without severe time dilation due to relativity. Even the nearest galaxies are several hundred thousand light-years distant from the Milky Way.

* ''Galactica's'' lightspeed ability may be a very fast means to reach superluminal top speeds at the cost of fuel effeciency. With that supposition and earlier ones, the Fleet may be able to go beyond the speed of light, but it may take them days at a very slow acceleration. Without the constraints of relativity, even just one gravity of acceleration would be able to overcome the speed of light in a short time.

* From what can be gathered, the FTL technology employed appears to somehow negate the ever increasing mass due to reaching relativistic speeds, at least partially. This could then be related to somehow negating the mass of the ship or by at least keeping it constant.

[[Category:A to Z]]
[[Category:Technology]]
[[Category:Technology (TOS)]]
[[Category:Terminology]]
[[Category:Terminology (TOS)]]
[[Category:TOS]]

User talk:Spencerian

2007-03-27T19:37:25Z

3DMaster: Response Greetings

''For discussions prior to January 1, 2006, [http://battlestarwiki.org/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASpencerian&diff=21890&oldid=21664 click here.]''

''For discussions prior to June 1, 2006, [http://www.battlestarwiki.org/en/index.php?title=User_talk:Spencerian&oldid=60768 click here.]''

''For discussions prior to September 1, 2006, [http://en.battlestarwiki.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Spencerian&oldid=75116 click here.]''

''For discussions prior to December 18, 2006, [http://en.battlestarwiki.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Spencerian&oldid=93841 click here.]''

==Updated User Page==
I stole my revised article design from Mercifull, and is living proof that I can't wiki code worth a damn. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 21:04, 19 December 2006 (CST)
:He stole the design from me. Joe stole it from him. lol. Been going around. heh. [[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 21:14, 19 December 2006 (CST)
::It continues the rounds; I've "borrowed" now. =) [[User:JubalHarshaw|JubalHarshaw]] 23:04, 12 January 2007 (CST)

==Response to EoJ Reversion==

Hi, just wanted to drop a quick line regarding the rollback to the article summary. I posted a comment regarding it on the Talk page, but wanted to say that as it was written, it seems too narrative. Granted, my changes may have confused readers, but I feel it needs to be consolidated. What do you think? --[[User:Sgtpayne|Sgtpayne]] 12:26, 20 December 2006 (CST) ([[User_Talk:Sgtpayne|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Sgtpayne|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Sgtpayne|E]])

:Shane had a good idea. We could break it up into acts (commercial breaks) but we should keep the relative order. I'll give that a try if someone hasn't done so; I have the episode downloaded. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 18:03, 20 December 2006 (CST)

==Response from Meteor==
Hi you added something to my talk page recently. I just rewatched the scene in Kobol's Last Gleaming part 1 where Elosha, Billy and Roslin discuss Kobol. Billy says the ruins on the planet are 2,000 years old. Elosha responds that this corresponds with when the 13 (not 12) colonies left Kobol.

While I agree you're probably right about the 13th colony leaving for earth 3,600 years ago and the other 12 colonies only a mere 2,000 years I do think the article should reflect the fact that Elosha's comment is not entirely accurate. [[User:Meteor|Meteor]]

== Response from MatthewFenton regarding clean up ==

Hey. Responded at the talk page showing some concerns as to why I believe it needs a clean up - if you don't think it needs a clean up then feel free to remove the tag, I've shown my concerns at least, hopefully it can make the article better. [[User:MatthewFenton|MatthewFenton]] 17:39, 1 January 2007 (CST)

== Red Pill ==

[[Battlestar_Wiki:Requests_for_bureaucratship/Spencerian|Follow the "Yellow" Link]] [[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 12:46, 5 January 2007 (CST)
:Strange... it's not yellow for me. (Monobook has either blue or pinkish). --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 12:58, 5 January 2007 (CST)
::Aww...this is very cool, one way or another. I'll fill it in a little later today. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 13:15, 5 January 2007 (CST)

== Welcome, Young Padawan! ==

Congrats! Here's a [[w:Squeegee|Squeegee]], and [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Bureaucrats|some pertinent reading material from Wikipedia]]. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] 20:04, 13 January 2007 (CST)
:Have we seen a [[Squeegee Boy]] in BSG yet? :-) Congrats Spenc! [[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 20:07, 13 January 2007 (CST)
::Congrats man, you've earned it. --[[User:Talos|Talos]] 21:54, 13 January 2007 (CST)
::: Congratulations ;-) [[User:MatthewFenton|MatthewFenton]] 06:08, 14 January 2007 (CST)
:::: Congratulations! --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 08:06, 14 January 2007 (CST)
:::::Much obliged, everyone. Thanks. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 09:58, 14 January 2007 (CST)

== Thanks ==

Just wanted to thank you for the advice you left on my talk page, next time I'll try not to jump the gun without better researching.--[[User:The One True Fred|The One True Fred]] 08:00, 26 January 2007 (CST)
:We've all done it before, but its not much of a learning curve. Once you know what's probably rumor and what's good, it only makes contributing and reading things here that much more intriguing. Don't let it sway your enthusiasm! --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 08:05, 26 January 2007 (CST)

== Howdy ==

Are you a fan of the flying bikes of doom? [[User:MatthewFenton|MatthewFenton]] 04:44, 27 January 2007 (CST)
:Um, I have no idea what that is. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 08:10, 27 January 2007 (CST)
::"[[Flying motorcycle]]" I presume --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 08:12, 27 January 2007 (CST)
::: Galactica 1980 :-P [[User:MatthewFenton|MatthewFenton]] 08:22, 27 January 2007 (CST)
::::Oh, lords, no. It's only ten episodes, but because of its horror I blame it for my social inadequacies in high school, my acne, the heartbreak of psoriasis and global warming. Who can I sue? Is that Oprah calling...? --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 08:33, 27 January 2007 (CST)
:::::Also, FYI, Dr. Phil on line 5. --[[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] 08:59, 27 January 2007 (CST)

== The origin of mankind ==

I noticed a comment in my talk about why you removed notes about the real Earth as homeworld for Humanity some months ago, feeling they were fanwanking. At the same time you pointed to pages about the sacred scrolls and various fan theories about the Exodus or Exodi in the show. In order to learn, I wanted to understand the difference. Is it just where I put it? My goal was to add only factual information. While I realize that the Earth in the show is going to be somewhat fictionalized (if we ever see it) there is an important difference between an Earth that had a different history than ours, and one where the science is so different that you might as well say Mars had canals (a common SF trope from before the 60s) or that rocks fall up.

However, where is the proper place to speculate what theories of Earth are consistent with what the writers are trying to show us in the program? The question of whether, in the re-imagined series, Earth is a colony of Kobol, or instead Kobol is a colony of Earth (and why that was covered up) is an important one to the show, and there are a number of clues in the show pointing to the latter case. {{unsigned|Bradtem}}

:I agree that removing your comments while allowing the convoluted theories in [[Sacred Scrolls]] stand isn't right. It's either both or neither. And if I ever saw fanwank, that's it. I'm toying with the idea of deleting that eyesore and presenting both theories very briefly, but without going into much detail. In fact that's what I'm going to do now. I've already mentioned that on the talk page there as well. However, I don't think those theories should be expanded much further there, as they go beyond the scope of "Sacred Scrolls" --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 06:18, 1 February 2007 (CST)

::I tend to agree with Serenity, Bradtem. Obviously the writers want to play with the viewers and make the more "thoughtful" of us wonder about this chicken-and-egg origin. At the same time, they purposefully don't indicate if BSG occurs in real-world Earth's past, present or future. As a result, we shouldn't speculate in detail, thus the concision or removal of your contribution (my apologies as I can't remember the specific reasons and haven't time right now to delve through the history for review). As Serenity noted, we should touch on the possibilities, but we must not go into elaborate "hypotheses" about it as that is strictly fanwanking. A few short definitive notes based on what has aired, and we must leave the rest of the speculation to the talk pages of the article or the reader's imagination. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 08:02, 1 February 2007 (CST)
:::I think his confusion stems from the fact that you linked him to a page that contained far more baseless speculation than his [http://en.battlestarwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Earth&diff=prev&oldid=88518 relatively short addition] you removed. It looked like you removed something that was fine elsewhere. He didn't even really speculate, but presented a scientific fact. Personally I agree with it, and hate those "we don't really have to pay attention to science. They can do what they want" arguments. Of course there is the possibility of BSG taking place in an alternate universe which has also been hinted at in podcasts/interviews.
:::But as you said, that's a discussion more suitable for forums, and a short outline of each point of view probably suffices here. --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 08:25, 1 February 2007 (CST)
::::I understand now. Thanks for the clarification. The whole subject is too confusing, which means we're doing the right thing in concising it in the first place. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 08:46, 1 February 2007 (CST)
::While the theories and speculation may be fanwanks, tracking down the real clues found within the show that back up or refute speculations is a worthwhile function for a wiki, in my view. However, it does mean you probably need to make references to the theories to understand why a real canonical detail is important to note. For example, Adama calls the Lagoon Nebula by the name M8, which is an 18th century Earth designation. That's either a writing error or pretty hard evidence regarding theories of the origin of Kobol and the colonies in the show. Either way it's worth noting, and the context is important. Sometimes there isn't even a theory. Today you removed an addition to the article of the Temple of 5, where I noted that there are 6 drapes and 5 figures standing on 5 of them, one is vacant. I don't actually know what that means in terms of speculation, but it smells like it's important so I was surprised to see it removed. In addition, my addition of information on Tyrol's reluctance to destroy the temple is also, in my view, important -- Tyrol is demonstrably under some external influence when it comes to the temple, so again I think it's important to understanding the temple, not just to the story of the episode, though I don't yet know why and did not include any speculation as to why. I ask this because it's obviously no fun to contribute items just to have them reverted. I try to stick to facts and information from actual episodes when editing pages that are not meant for speculation. --[[User:Bradtem]]
:::Those are all things that can be added to the episode articles (generally under "Analysis"). The M8 thing is mentioned on [[Home, Part II]] example. --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 17:02, 1 February 2007 (CST)
::::I understand a desire not to repeat all the episode summaries in other places, but everything in an article about a special object or character is from some episode, so does it not make sense to include the key points to understanding the object in question in the article about it? It's a pretty fuzzy line, my view is that you really only want to roll back something that's false or a pointless addition. The line about M8, if it's not a writing error, for example, is arguably the most important clue given in the Temple of Athena scene about the nature of Earth. It would be odd to me to not repeat it both under the episode summary, but also in the pages on Earth and the Tomb. If somebody adds every single thing from an episode, that might be rolled back as redundant. But if they filter what they judge to be the most important things learned about something, that is, if done well, useful information so I would not roll it back.--[[User:Bradtem|Bradtem]] 15:53, 3 February 2007 (CST)
:::::I understand. There ''is'' a fuzziness to what we do as administrators and other contributors that have been here awhile. I apologize if the edits that we have done have been confusing, as a wiki, while trying to stick to guidelines and policies, can sometimes not enforce them properly, or in this case, may be enforcing too strictly. There are plenty of articles that overlap in content, like [[Battle of Ragnar Anchorage]] and [[33]]. The key is theme; the battle page details the strategic element only (no character analysis) while the episode summary is heavier on character and event information. False or overly speculative stuff is reverted as soon as we find it, but it's not really a "sin" to add episodic stuff to a item article, it's just less preferred to keep the article fully on topic. The M8 information, as you might know, is detailed in the notes of the Tomb of Athena article. I agree with your thoughts on it, and again I apologize if the situation has taken anything from the fun you get in enjoying the wiki. I'm assuming that I am wrong in this problem because, as a veteran contributor, we can get set in our ways sometimes. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 18:54, 3 February 2007 (CST)

== Superbowl ==

So colts fan, what's your plans for the big game? [[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 14:07, 1 February 2007 (CST)
:Not sure. A bunch of friends are throwing a party, so I thought I'd go and cheer (or cry) with them, show off my new work MacBook Pro laptop...stuff like that. This frakker ''rocks''... :) Anywho, our city is happy just to be in the Big Show; winning will be OK, but, prior to 1984, we normally sided with the Bears, so it's kinda win-win for everybody. Heard that we're vying to be the host for Super Bowl 45 in 2011... ha. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 14:26, 1 February 2007 (CST)
::The odds are in the colts favor... 7 to 1. [[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 15:29, 1 February 2007 (CST)
:::'''''GO COLTS.''''' --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 18:55, 3 February 2007 (CST)

:::::'''''COLTS WIN! COLTS WIN!''''' Wondering where Indianapolis is? See [[w:Indianapolis, Indiana|this link]]. I almost went on Wikipedia tonight to <s>vandalize</s>edit in "Home of the Super Bowl Champion Indianapolis Colts" to the page! --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 22:17, 4 February 2007 (CST)

:::::Very good game....I think. @ the Police "Party" there was a door prize @ the end. A '''''Sirus Satellite System'''''. What are the odds... I won! Both winnars tonight! :-)!!!! [[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 23:11, 4 February 2007 (CST)
::::::Are you Sirius?! :) Congrats, Shane! --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 07:31, 5 February 2007 (CST)
:::::::Yeah. Little travel one for the car. Wish it were an XM because I a bigger Baseball fan than Football, but this will be good for Football Season next year. Plus... I don't listen to a lot of music. Guess I have a larger selection now. [[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 12:05, 5 February 2007 (CST)
:::: I know where Chicago is and I know where the Dolphin Stadium is in FL. But I have no idea where in the US Indianapolis is ^_^. It's gotta be some make-belive city im sure. It conjours up images of [[w:Indy Racing League|Indy car]] racing tho, and an old TV show called [[w:Eerie, Indiana|Eerie, Indiana]] --[[User:Mercifull|Mercifull]] ([[User talk:Mercifull|Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Mercifull|Contribs]]) 08:06, 5 February 2007 (CST)

==Question==

Hi Spencerian. I made a boo boo yesterday and included a potential spoiler (marked with spoiler tag) about the final five in that article and not the talk page as I intended (Meteor need sleep...I could have sworn I put it into the discussion page). Should I move it or leave it where it is? I can understand if people don't want to see a spoiler in the actual article especially since it has yet to be confirmed. -Whatever everyone thinks is best...I didn't intend for it to be in the actual article. --[[User:Meteor|Meteor]] 05 February 2007.
:That's OK, we caught it. While not verified, it's still from a cast member, so we give it some slack but wrapped it in a spoiler tag. No worries. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 08:19, 6 February 2007 (CST)

== "cylon conspiracy" analisys ==

Hi,
I removed my "cylon conspiracy" Analysis from Epiphanies article (About the cylons causing Roslin's cancer).
[[http://en.battlestarwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Epiphanies&oldid=106852]]
I moved it to the discussion. I still think it is good, but I haven't watched all the series including Torn. This is why I would not like to go into the argument now, so I won't find out any spoilers.
Thanks. --[[User:Cyborg|Cyborg]] 10:55, 6 February 2007 (CST)

:Sure thing, Cyborg. ''Battlestar'' takes a lot of work to track all the stuff going down, so it's no biggie. I'll try not to spoil any more for you. :) --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 10:58, 6 February 2007 (CST)

== Epiphanies "why did altar save Roslin analysis" ==

You removed my question from Epiphanies article. Your answer to me was valuable and was not on the article, so I added it as an analysis.
http://en.battlestarwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Epiphanies&oldid=106884
--[[User:Cyborg|Cyborg]] 11:23, 6 February 2007 (CST)
:Good idea! --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 11:27, 6 February 2007 (CST)

== Podcast Cite ==
The extended editing session podcast will likely not reside in the "Podcast:A Day in the Life" spot, as that spot will likely hold the "regular" podcast (which will hopefully be released someday). As for the naming of the extended podcast... I don't have any strong opinions. I guess whatever the poor schmuck who has to transcribe it wants to call it. I saw your recent addition to [[Seelix]], but didn't want to step on your toes. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 14:23, 22 February 2007 (CST)
:I'm listening to it right now, all 2+ hours of it. Lots of interesting stuff that I'm jotting down for later inclusion. Yes, that one's going to be a super bitch to transcribe. Another summer project, probably. I bet we won't have another one; Ron just got tired or had schedule conflict and thought something different would be good. I'll delink it for now. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 14:26, 22 February 2007 (CST)
::We've really been lucky to have all the regular podcasts be as timely as they have. On the other side of the coin, though, it does save RDM time on the DVD side as they apparently package that up as the DVD commentary so at least they don't have to back into the studio later. I'm definitely a fan of getting the commentary captured as close to production time as possible, as the longer you wait the more chances you have to forget all the really interesting details. I still wish he would have "gone back" and done one for "[[Fragged]]", but wishes and fishes (and whatnot). Maybe he'll do a double-header for this week with this week's episode (doing both podcasts back to back). Scifi.com still claims it will be posted later this week... we'll see if they're true to their word. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 14:50, 22 February 2007 (CST)
:::If someone gets me a link to that extended podcast, I'll be the poor schmuck and make it my holiday project (I've got next week off). --[[User:Catrope|Catrope]] 15:51, 22 February 2007 (CST)
Hallelujah! Podcasts for "A Day in the Life" AND "Dirty Hands" are up. I'm starting into the "Day in the Life". Check out the "Yellow Submarine" link for an interesting Scotch story. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 07:50, 27 February 2007 (CST)
:Good. I'll just continue transcribing the bonus podcast. --[[User:Catrope|Catrope]] 12:13, 27 February 2007 (CST)

== Athena not wearing a spacesuit ==

I answered your delete in the discussion:
[http://en.battlestarwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:A_Measure_of_Salvation&oldid=109483]
--[[User:Cyborg|Cyborg]] 10:20, 23 February 2007 (CST)

== Thanks for the welcome ==

Are you familiar with Thomas Merton? He was a Catholic monk who explored the convergences between Catholicism and Zen Buddhism. I think you'd enjoy his work. [[User:Jeet|Jeet]] 15:47, 7 March 2007 (CST)
:Hi, Jeet. I've heard of him. Been reading a book from a Buddhist monk that knew him and also speaks about those convergences. It's a very interesting supplement to becoming Catholic...a wild ride. :) Have fun on the wiki! --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 20:55, 7 March 2007 (CST)

== Maelstrom podcast ==
Mind if I steal back the Maelstrom teaser transcription? With ZarekRocks finishing up TSAR, I could probably finish the Maelstrom podcast today. I don't want to step on your toes if you've already started on it, but if you haven't had a chance to get to it yet I might as well finish that one out. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 07:30, 16 March 2007 (CDT)
:Please do. I'm completely unable to do it in the time I hoped. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 08:27, 16 March 2007 (CDT)

== F-5 ==

I do not [http://en.battlestarwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Final_five&diff=114289&oldid=114277 understand] why you rolled back my edit to the F-5 page? As I stated in my edit summary they are viewable in high-def.. [[User:MatthewFenton|MatthewFenton]] 18:35, 24 March 2007 (CDT)
:Sorry. It wasn't clear what you were implying about what you saw, and given the mysterious nature of the subject and the contentious debate of the photos, I didn't want to reopen the debate. What high-definition shots were you referring to, and (without noting who) could you recognize familiar faces? In any case, the promo picture couldn't be the same people, thus my original change. A little more clarification's needed. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 20:34, 24 March 2007 (CDT)
::Over here in the UK we air BSG in hi-def, see time-frame 31:00 to 31:20, you'll see #2s chin, you see #5s fingers and the out-line of #4s face and you see #5s lips, I can upload some screen captures if you'd like. [[User:MatthewFenton|MatthewFenton]] 05:21, 25 March 2007 (CDT)
:::I understand. I think what others who had contributed in the article were trying to infer the ''identities'' of the figures from the promo shot, and not so much the physical details. Given that, if you have some good screenshots of, say, Three interacting with one of the five in "Rapture," then it would be a good addition, in my opinion. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 06:46, 25 March 2007 (CDT)

== 1900x1200 resolution.... ==

wow. ;-) on the desktop. There were to problems during the build. 1) There was a missing thred nut from one of the holders, 2) the sata cables the came with the mobo are to short to reach where the harddrive pins are. Using the "designated" primary hard drive on top of a box with a static free paper right now so I could install vista. ;-) Wried thing though... in the RAM it says 3.25GB not 4GB. Typo or do you think it's the BIOS on the mobo? I also installed all the "primary" drivers and applications on the C: partition so everything is together. After this... things start going on the D partition, which is also 250GB. [[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 07:13, 25 March 2007 (CDT)
:Probably some limitation between your motherboard and OS to address all the memory. It's normal with WindowsXP, but should work in Vista I think --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 07:36, 25 March 2007 (CDT)
::XP 32-bit cannot address more than 4GB of memory. You may want to edit your boot.ini file with '/3GB' switch, which will force windows to use the memory from 3 to 4gb for itself and keep the lower 3GB for applications. You may also want to check out Windows XP x86-64 Edition, which is what i run, simply because it can address 128gb of memory and potentially 16TB. It's a lot faster than the 32-bit version as well...9 second boot time on mine :) --[[User:Fordsierra4x4|Fordsierra4x4]] 07:50, 25 March 2007 (CDT)

== Response Greetings ==

I wasn't aware I was being uncivil. I reread my comments, and only "LOL" and the question about knowing science might be so. The question however was just that, a question. The New Series "science" is as far removed from science as you can get, and article about the New Series FTL propulsion, quite frankly, is a mess. The article talks about how the shows producers keep it natural and chose something within science, as if other SF series and books don't; which is of course ridiculous. The whole point of SF is take something that is grounded in science; possibly make up some new science to circumvent something, but basically keep it grounded. It is not called ''Science'' Fiction for nothing. To say the nBSG is the only one who does this, is patently false. Then after saying how natural and non-gimmicky and possible it; one names the ultimate in gimmicky FTL technologies; heck the holy grail in FTL technologies.

e.g. A warp drive (which is an actual scientific theory right down to the math involved actually), requires one to bend space-time only locally around your ship. The nBSG fold drive requires one to take the destination, however far away, bend everything in between around a middle axis until the two points are about close, smash a hole space-time, make it stable for something to pass through, and that which passes through it, has to be shielded enough from the maelstrom of space-time destroying energies to survive. Star Trek's Federation can't do it. They can't fold space, although they have met two races that can, and can't create a stable wormhole. They created a wormhole once, but the moment they sent a probe into it, the wormhole collapsed. It is the ultimate, most advanced, holy grail in FTL technologies; the comparatively primitives of the nBSG can do, what the far more advanced Federation can't.

What has that got to do with the article and my comments? Simple; the whole article talks about the TOS and its creators being loose and never explaining anything; yet nBSG has never explained the jump drive in show either. The original Star Trek never got to show the ship going to warp because of SFX and budgetary constraints, it doesn't seem to get slammed as science fantasy and being loose with science; yet TOS BSG does. The producers may have done so outside of the show, I don't know, but back then, there was no internet, and nobody had any access to the shows creators, and they never got to explain things they couldn't, or wouldn't for whatever reason, put inside the show, making the scientific explanation in nBSG forum pretty much one big fan speculation... without links to sources either direct explanation in show, or explanation by the producers I might ad.

Of course, when I rightly wonder if a change to the article to far better reflect the original series FTL, I'm asked to provide absolute proof that this is so from creators and link it in the article; while the nBSG article about its propulsion doesn't have to apparently; or produce an exact motivation why; which before I even write is, is tossed aside as "fanwank". Which is measuring with two standards; don't you think? Or in short; a change will indeed will not be appreciated; which makes me wonder why TOS fans are asked to help with filling out the TOS articles if any changes and additions made will be deleted as either fanwank or having no evidence because the creators couldn't sit down and write internet articles back then.

I'll just add a link to a TOS tech manual site on its propulsion. --[[User:3DMaster|3DMaster]] 14:37, 27 March 2007 (CDT)

Talk:Propulsion (TOS)/Archive 1

2007-03-25T23:41:06Z

3DMaster: /* FTL for real */

Talk:Propulsion (TOS)/Archive 1

2007-03-25T22:28:52Z

3DMaster: FTL for real