gmp@rayssd.UUCP (Gregory M. Paris) (08/15/85)
The way I understand it, the "inside" of the TARDIS is in some other space
(not unlike the "vast tract of hyperspace" where Earth II was being assembled
in the Hitchhiker's Guide series). The inside of the TARDIS thus is "mapped"
onto the "outside." Since it is really only necessary for transportation
for the door of the TARDIS (and probably the rest of the outside) to move,
it seems to me that only that part of the TARDIS actually need move through
space-time. Moving the outside of the TARDIS and correspondingly altering
the "mapping function" is all that is needed to accomplish travel under these
assumptions. Question: Then why does it seem that the inside of the TARDIS is
actually in motion? (Yes, I know, I must be wrong. So what's the ACTUAL way
that it works?)
--
++---------------------------------------------------------------------------++
|| Greg Paris {allegra,linus,raybed2,ccice5,brunix}!rayssd!gmp ||
++---------------------------------------------------------------------------++demillo@uwmacc.UUCP (Rob DeMillo) (08/15/85)
> Since it is really only necessary for transportation > for the door of the TARDIS (and probably the rest of the outside) to move, > it seems to me that only that part of the TARDIS actually need move through > space-time. Moving the outside of the TARDIS and correspondingly altering > the "mapping function" is all that is needed to accomplish travel under these > assumptions. Question: Then why does it seem that the inside of the TARDIS is > actually in motion? (Yes, I know, I must be wrong. So what's the ACTUAL way > that it works?) > -- > from greg paris I've often wondered this myself. As an "ex-math-guy", I always thought the explaination for the motion of the TARDIS simply wonderful! (The TARDIS existing in n-space, and the otuside configuration being merely a mapped image to where/whenever desired.) As such, I have no idea why the TARDIS moves, other than to increase the storyline potential.... signed, equally confused in madison -- --- Rob DeMillo Madison Academic Computer Center ...seismo!uwvax!uwmacc!demillo "...That's enough, that's enough! Television's takin' its toll. Turn it off, turn it off! Give me the remote control! I've been nice! I've been good! Please don't do this to me! I've been nice, turn it off, I don't wanna hav'ta see... ...'The Brady Bunch!'"
wmartin@brl-tgr.ARPA (Will Martin ) (08/16/85)
The internal effects ofthe TARDIS moving, like the jerking when people are thrown to the floor, or seeming accelleration when they have to strain to reach the control panel, are probably totally unexplainable by any self-coherent system of scientific or pseudo-scientific rationale. It is like the scenes in Star Trek when people on the bridge are jolted out of their seats by some outside effect, like being brought to a dead stop from warp speeds... This ignores that, if ANY fraction of the inertial effect that such outside actions would have was transmitted through to the crew inside, the forces would be so great that they would be turned to a thin red jam instead of just being shaken up. (That is, even if some sort of "anti-inertial" fields protect the crew, the forces acting are so immense that any fractional leakage [no matter how tiny a fraction seeped through] of these forces through such shielding would be enough to completely destroy the stuff inside.) As for the scenes of the TARDIS spinning through space, I have never found them internally consistent either -- if it vanishes from sight when "taking off", why would it be visible during any part of the "transit" period? All in all, just symptoms of poor writing and/or direction, I would say. Will
trudel@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU (Jon) (08/19/85)
>As for the scenes of the TARDIS spinning through space, I have never >found them internally consistent either -- if it vanishes from sight >when "taking off", why would it be visible during any part of the >"transit" period? > >All in all, just symptoms of poor writing and/or direction, I would say. > >Will Will, How else could they show that the TARDIS was in transit? I think that it is necessary. Also, the TARDIS has to travel through SOMETHING to get from one place to another. On the theoretical side, perhaps the spinning TARDIS is the 4-dimensional image of itself as it travels through pan-dimensional space. -- Jonathan D. Trudel arpa:trudel@ru-blue.arpa uucp:{seismo,allegra,ihnp4}!topaz!trudel "You can't fight in here, this is the WAR ROOM!"
sdh@alice.UUCP (Steve Hawley) (08/19/85)
You will find that the scenes with the TARDIS spinning away are when it has rematerialized in space as opposed to materializing on the ground or just flying through time vorticies. In Castrovalva the TARDIS was seen spinning around at the begining of time. It was in space at the time, not in transit. Steve Hawley alice!sdh
al@mot.UUCP (Al Filipski) (08/21/85)
>As for the scenes of the TARDIS spinning through space, I have never >found them internally consistent either -- if it vanishes from sight I think that this is just a sort of inoffensive poetic license. Similar examples are when the Enterprise makes a "whooshing" sound as it flies by at high speed during the opening credits of Star Trek, or when it becomes disabled and is shown floating at a cockeyed angle in space. -------------------------------- Alan Filipski, UNIX group, Motorola Microsystems, Tempe, AZ U.S.A {seismo|ihnp4}!ut-sally!oakhill!mot!al ucbvax!arizona!asuvax!mot!al -------------------------------- "Can you operate it, Spock?" "Well, Jim, this computer was designed and constructed 300 million years ago by a totally alien race of methane-breathing, squidlike beings who built it using technologies unknown to us and used it for purposes we cannot conceive of and then mysteriously vanished leaving no shred of documentation as to its operation. It may take a few moments."
jtb@kitc.UUCP (John Burgess) (08/22/85)
In article <757@brl-tgr.ARPA> wmartin@brl-bmd.UUCP writes: ... >As for the scenes of the TARDIS spinning through space, I have never >found them internally consistent either -- if it vanishes from sight >when "taking off", why would it be visible during any part of the >"transit" period? > >All in all, just symptoms of poor writing and/or direction, I would say. > >Will Maybe they're put in so nit-picky folks like us have something to talk about :-)! -- John Burgess ATT-IS Labs, So. Plainfield NJ (HP 1C-221) {most Action Central sites}!kitc!jtb (201) 561-7100 x2481 (8-259-2481)
kpk@gitpyr.UUCP (Kevin P. Kleinfelter) (08/24/85)
The TARDIS does not move...It is the rest of reality which is spinning. Since your frame of reference is moving it is the TARDIS which appears to move. The new question is "Why does all of reality spin when the TARDIS is in transit?"
jeq@laidbak.UUCP (Jonathan E. Quist) (08/28/85)
In article <684@gitpyr.UUCP> kpk@gitpyr.UUCP (Kevin P. Kleinfelter) writes: >The TARDIS does not move...It is the rest of reality which is spinning. >Since your frame of reference is moving it is the TARDIS which appears to move. > >The new question is "Why does all of reality spin when the TARDIS is in >transit?" Simple. Our frame of reference relative to the TARDIS is fixed relative to the studios of the BBC. The studios of the BBC are securely mounted to the Earth. The Earth is spinning. Therefore, given that the TARDIS is absolutely immobile, and given that the known universe is relatively immobile relative to the known motion of the Earth, it follows that the known universe is spinning relative to the TARDIS, therefore the known universe is absolutely spinning. Then, since we know that the TARDIS is not real, the known universe must be real by default (unless you insisted that the Earth is real, and the known universe is not necessarily real), therefore the known universe is all of reality, therefore all of reality is spinning. (Conversely, when the TARDIS is not in transit, the known universe is not real.) Jonathan E. Quist Lachman Associates, Inc. ihnp4!laidbak!jeq ``... and a dead shot with a nose laser.''