Re: OT:MACROSS(was Some questions about Zeta Gundam)


Alfred Urrutia (alfredu@fa.disney.com)
Fri, 4 Dec 1998 17:53:15 -0800


On Dec 4, 5:37pm, Mark Kuettner wrote:
> Subject: OT:MACROSS(was Some questions about Zeta Gundam)

> >
> >"Real" science. Minovsky particles. Uh, yeah. Whatever bits of fancy
> >the Robotech series employed its level of bullshit science is equal to
> >Gundam in that regard, only different. Whereas Gundam chose to create
> >a new particle with secondary good and bad benefits Robotech chose to
> go
> >with the previously unknown energy source idea. Which has nothing to
> do
> >with Macross, I know.
> >
>
> I think in this situation it's relative, but to me Gundam tends to back
> up its stuff a little more scientifically. Yes, they both take
> their share of "artistic liscense", but it's hard for me to believe
> all the technical discussions made by -Z-, Mark, Probe and others on
> here about nuclear generators, apogee motors and material composites,
> things that are a intrigal part of MS constuction, is all "bullshit".
>

All those things are real. Their application in the Gundam universe is
spotty at best. I refer you to heroes tear-assing through the enemy
with inferior mobile suits, etc. Robotech used the same sorts of apogee
motors and material composites. Those destroids blew up like WWII tanks,
they weren't invincible or anything. The spiritual side of Protoculture
I could do without, no doubt. Gundam is far more realistic in general
than Macross/Robotech but its basis for existence, the Minovsky particle,
is the fake part. So what, it's still my favorite series.

> >You want 'bullshit', take a look at the new Popular Science (Dec.) for
> a
> >great article on air bubbles in water and resonating sound waves that,
> >when they implode, produce a blue light and create temperatures hotter
> >than the sun. And no one knows why this happens. It can be reproduced
> >easily (enough to make what looks like a constant light source in the
> >water) but that's about it.
>
> People used to believe the world is flat, that the moon is made of
> cheese, and that you could meet Elvis if you flew into a Black Hole.
> People will always make claims without the ability to prove it with
> fact. It creates drama. Just like a story:>
>

My only point in mentioning that was because it's *real* but so far not
explainable. If it had first appeared in a sci-fi novel I'm sure some
people would think it sounded like crap or some unobtainium power source.
Read the article. Right *now* they say it's a worthless power source
(not enough energy produced) but it is fusion in a test tube.

Alfred.

-- 
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
"This is recockulous!"

- Aladin "Sarsippius" Sulemanagic

Alfred Urrutia - Disney FA - 818.526.3338 - alfredu@fa.disney.com -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat Dec 05 1998 - 10:59:34 JST