the speed of light doesnt enter into this situation at all... we're only dealing with a local area. in fact, since the sun or any other light sources are so far away, as i stated before, all the light comes in at the same angle. and to notice time delay effects between ships... well, c is 3e8m/s. so to have a difference of one second, you'd have to be 300,000,000 meters away. and i *dont* think ships we see on screen in b5 are ever that far apart /ubbthreads/images/icons/wink.gif
-
The new B5TV.COM is here. We've replaced our 16 year old software with flashy new XenForo install. Registration is open again. Password resets will work again. More info here.
space ships and stuff
- Thread starter jnk5y
- Start date
D
**DONOTDELETE**
Guest
In case of lasers, delay effects would be purely an artistic touch. Delay would become relevant when ships would start firing from light-seconds away (say from Earth to the Moon). But in the world of Babylon 5, few ships do anything from that distance (although I would not recommend trying with a Vorlon planetkiller).
In case of heavy particles which cannot be accelerated to full C (neutrons for example, the Minbari are said to like netron weapons) there would be a slight delay compared to light. So small that no computer or engine could react (perhaps with the exception of the best Shadowtech) but a delay nevertheless.
In case of heavy particles which cannot be accelerated to full C (neutrons for example, the Minbari are said to like netron weapons) there would be a slight delay compared to light. So small that no computer or engine could react (perhaps with the exception of the best Shadowtech) but a delay nevertheless.
D
**DONOTDELETE**
Guest
Most lasers work in the visible light spectrum, thus having a color. The one which reads your CD disks (no, dont look into it) should have a wavelength of 650 nanometers, and hence red color. Lasers operating outside the visible spectrum are naturally not visible to us.
But this was not the point. The point was about a beam of coherent, unidirectional light passing you in vacuum. Because none of its photons is coming in your way (unless they hit somethig) you should not see it. Only when they hit some stray molecules in the vacuum can the beam become visible to you.
But this was not the point. The point was about a beam of coherent, unidirectional light passing you in vacuum. Because none of its photons is coming in your way (unless they hit somethig) you should not see it. Only when they hit some stray molecules in the vacuum can the beam become visible to you.
D
**DONOTDELETE**
Guest
I think that the Minbari weapons (no matter the type, they are imaginary anyway) accelerate some heavier particles. These particles might have a short lifetime, accompanied with a habit of transforming into something else, or colliding with each other. Such processes would produce changes in their energetic state, and while losing energy they could emit photons. That would make the beam visible.
I think there's a perfectly good explanation for everything. Ever since reporters went into war zones to cover the action, it's been important to have good images in order to satisfy the folks at home. Bearing in mind that B5 is a "future history" it's obvious that good images were needed. Saying that fighters are there to help protect the larger ships is just a PR smoke screen, figuratively and literally. The fighters are there to provide fill lighting and to release small particles into space around big fights. All the paricipants accept this because they want good pictures to go back home to their folks, too!
D
**DONOTDELETE**
Guest
As far as multiple light sources near the station goes, it would make sense because you would have sunlight reflecting from the station and from the planet. As far as beam weapons go, I think that a plasma beam would be visible even if the beam were moving at nearlight speed. Of course you would probably be seeing less less than 1% radient energy. The sound in space issue is easily adressed. Sound waves are presure waves. If you were in a space suite outsude a ship and and explosion occured near by you would not be able hear it with your ears. But, you could have a sensor that could detect the presure wave of the explosion and tranlate it as sound. Sort of the same way that the signals of solar wind have been translated ionto sound.
you're pretty much right.. you'd really wind up with two primary light sources... one from the sun, the other from light diffusing off epsilon 3. they started doing this in the show somewhere between season 2 and 3 (you can see it rather clearly in the season 3 opening credits when the camera passes below the station). they also threw in some blue light from the epsilon nebula but this tended to be a bit overexagerated from 'reality' (but it looked better that way).
D
**DONOTDELETE**
Guest
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by superbob:
<font color=yellow>The end result? awesome effects I think we all agree on this. The problem is in order to prove all the theories that have been thrown around would actyually be to go up there and do it for ourselves! God wouldn't that be somthing! </font color=yellow><hr></blockquote>
We have footage various space craft and stations over the years in orbit. I just started thinking about the way the space shutle`s cargo bay looks when it is open and turned away from the sun. The shadows did not look any more dramatic in the void of space than it would on the surface of the earth. I also recall some news footage of either a shutle or a station going from the night side to the day side. Even before it entered the sunlight I could still see the edges of the craft. Now what I cant rember is if the video was normal video or image enhaced video.
<font color=yellow>The end result? awesome effects I think we all agree on this. The problem is in order to prove all the theories that have been thrown around would actyually be to go up there and do it for ourselves! God wouldn't that be somthing! </font color=yellow><hr></blockquote>
We have footage various space craft and stations over the years in orbit. I just started thinking about the way the space shutle`s cargo bay looks when it is open and turned away from the sun. The shadows did not look any more dramatic in the void of space than it would on the surface of the earth. I also recall some news footage of either a shutle or a station going from the night side to the day side. Even before it entered the sunlight I could still see the edges of the craft. Now what I cant rember is if the video was normal video or image enhaced video.
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by superbob:
<font color=yellow>The end result? awesome effects I think we all agree on this. The problem is in order to prove all the theories that have been thrown around would actyually be to go up there and do it for ourselves! God wouldn't that be somthing! </font color=yellow><hr></blockquote>
optics is optics... no theories, thats just the way light works. the lighting in B5 is inaccurate, period.
but nowhere did i ever say that it was *bad* the CG in B5 was what got me into CG in the first place! i absolutely adore the designing and lighting and everything about the CG in b5 up to season 4 (season 5 went downhill...). in fact, not one single movie or tv show has done lighting in space properly because it just doesnt look as good... the emphasis is put not on realism but on asthetics, which is how it should be!
<font color=yellow>The end result? awesome effects I think we all agree on this. The problem is in order to prove all the theories that have been thrown around would actyually be to go up there and do it for ourselves! God wouldn't that be somthing! </font color=yellow><hr></blockquote>
optics is optics... no theories, thats just the way light works. the lighting in B5 is inaccurate, period.
but nowhere did i ever say that it was *bad* the CG in B5 was what got me into CG in the first place! i absolutely adore the designing and lighting and everything about the CG in b5 up to season 4 (season 5 went downhill...). in fact, not one single movie or tv show has done lighting in space properly because it just doesnt look as good... the emphasis is put not on realism but on asthetics, which is how it should be!
Did I ask a good question? Another question that pertains mor to RL. If we ever find another planet that is suitable for us to live on, most likely it will have a sun that is either bigger or smaller than ours. If that is the case, then its light might be tinted a different color. How much could this throw off our spectrum if at all?
Nukemall
Regular
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Tigara:
<font color=yellow>If that is the case, then its light might be tinted a different color. How much could this throw off our spectrum if at all? </font color=yellow><hr></blockquote>
The atmosphere of the planet would also have an effect on the percieved light on the planet, relflecting or refracting light of certain wavelengths depending on its composition. Don't get what you mean by throwing off the spectrum though.
<font color=yellow>If that is the case, then its light might be tinted a different color. How much could this throw off our spectrum if at all? </font color=yellow><hr></blockquote>
The atmosphere of the planet would also have an effect on the percieved light on the planet, relflecting or refracting light of certain wavelengths depending on its composition. Don't get what you mean by throwing off the spectrum though.
