User talk:Boogaloo: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 23:05, 3 March 2006

Hello and welcome to the Battlestar Wiki! Please take a momemnt to view our Standards and Conventions, which highlights everything you need to know about proper formatting and editing of an article on the Wiki!

Also, I have a question regarding your edits to Naturalistic science fiction -- you cite that there are billins of potentially life supporting worlds out there, yet you do not cite any proof. I have since removed the comments from that page. In accordance with the our citation policy, any information of this nature really needs to be cited.

Should you have any questions, you are welcome to communicate them at the Wikipedian Quorum or direct your comments directly at an adminstrator at our Administrators' noticeboard. Thanks! -- Joe Beaudoin 07:46, 3 March 2006 (CST)

Joe, I believe most pertinent would be the Drake Equation. Also see Drake's newest estimates at http://wired.com/wired/archive/12.12/life.html and the estimate of biogenesis probability at http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0205014 It should be noted that the latter is an actual academic publication published in "Astrobiology" Fall 2002, Vol. 2, Number 2, pp 293-304 --OliverH. 08:26, 3 March 2006 (CST)

Battlestar Galactica is far more realistic than Star Trek, which claimed that there are aliens on practically every planet (I mean, Vulcan is Epsilon Eridani and that's a stone's throw from here). Showing that "If there are aliens, they are actually a lot rarer than most tv scifi would have you believe" is quite realistic. --The Merovingian 13:37, 3 March 2006 (CST)

Star Trek suggested an artificial deliberate distribution of such life. As such, they clearly acknowledge a non-natural abundance, and even a non-natural design. Under such circumstances, which, taking FTL travel for granted, are perfectly reasonable, standards of natural distribution don't apply. "Most TV scifi" is also an unsuitable standard. Things are quite different whether a series is set around Earth or in a different region of the galaxy altogether, where stars are much more common than in our relatively remote corner. Plus, there's plenty of series with a very limited "supply" of aliens, such as "V" or "Alien Nation", "Space:A&B" etc. let alone stuff such as "Dark Angel" which very much qualifies as SciFi as well. However, the issue is not aliens, but life supporting worlds, and as the data cited above shows, these are believed to be quite abundant. In order to judge what's unrealistic, one has to be familiar with what's realistic first. --OliverH. 17:03, 3 March 2006 (CST)

Revision as of 23:03, 3 March 2006 view source OliverH. (talk \| contribs) 32 edits No edit summary ← Older edit		Revision as of 23:05, 3 March 2006 view source OliverH. (talk \| contribs) 32 edits No edit summary Newer edit →
Line 9:		Line 9:
	Battlestar Galactica is far more realistic than Star Trek, which claimed that there are aliens on practically every planet (I mean, Vulcan is Epsilon Eridani and that's a stone's throw from here). Showing that "If there are aliens, they are actually a lot rarer than most tv scifi would have you believe" is quite realistic. --[[User:The Merovingian\|The Merovingian]] 13:37, 3 March 2006 (CST)		Battlestar Galactica is far more realistic than Star Trek, which claimed that there are aliens on practically every planet (I mean, Vulcan is Epsilon Eridani and that's a stone's throw from here). Showing that "If there are aliens, they are actually a lot rarer than most tv scifi would have you believe" is quite realistic. --[[User:The Merovingian\|The Merovingian]] 13:37, 3 March 2006 (CST)

	:Star Trek suggested an artificial deliberate distribution of such life. As such, they clearly acknowledge a non-natural abundance, and even a non-natural design. Under such circumstances, which, taking FTL travel for granted, are perfectly reasonable, standards of natural distribution don't apply. "Most TV scifi" is also an unsuitable standard. Things are quite different whether a series is set around Earth or in a different region of the galaxy altogether, where stars are much more common than in our relatively remote corner. Plus, there's plenty of series with a very limited "supply" of aliens, such as "V" or "Alien Nation", "Space:A&B" etc. let alone stuff such as "Dark Angel" which very much qualifies as SciFi as well. However, the issue is not aliens, but life supporting worlds, and as the data cited above shows, these are believed to be quite abundant. --[[User:OliverH.\|OliverH.]] 17:03, 3 March 2006 (CST)		:Star Trek suggested an artificial deliberate distribution of such life. As such, they clearly acknowledge a non-natural abundance, and even a non-natural design. Under such circumstances, which, taking FTL travel for granted, are perfectly reasonable, standards of natural distribution don't apply. "Most TV scifi" is also an unsuitable standard. Things are quite different whether a series is set around Earth or in a different region of the galaxy altogether, where stars are much more common than in our relatively remote corner. Plus, there's plenty of series with a very limited "supply" of aliens, such as "V" or "Alien Nation", "Space:A&B" etc. let alone stuff such as "Dark Angel" which very much qualifies as SciFi as well. However, the issue is not aliens, but life supporting worlds, and as the data cited above shows, these are believed to be quite abundant. In order to judge what's unrealistic, one has to be familiar with what's realistic first. --[[User:OliverH.\|OliverH.]] 17:03, 3 March 2006 (CST)