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

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. --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. --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. --CalculatinAvatar^(C-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.) --Spencerian 17:44, 30 October 2006 (CST)

The capitalization bugs me as well. --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. --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 --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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Niles (talk • contribs).

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 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. --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. - --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. -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - 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. -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - 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. --Spencerian 10:51, 28 March 2007 (CDT)