That’s because a holodeck isn’t merely a projection on the walls. It’s been described a few times as a complex array of volumetric displays, forcefields, and replicated materials that shift around the individuals participating in the holodeck.
Basically, the way it’s described, the illusion shouldn’t work from your perspective as viewers/audience.
No amount of any technology would be able to make people think they’re in a vast desert with others several kilometers away when theyre actually standing within arms reach.
But the technobabble handwaving works for me.
There’s just absolutely zero point in pretending the holodecks are “hard scifi”
I mean… If you’re wearing a VR headset and move via treadmill… Then you’re pretty much halfway towards what holodeck does already. So now imagine it’s a few centuries into the future.
pretty much halfway towards what holodeck does already.
Yeah, a bad copy that’s not affecting all of your senses as has lots of limitations?
VR is fun but it’s nowhere near fooling the senses properly. Proprioception, acceleration.
You refuse to answer questions which I say can’t be answered while still not agreeing with me that it’s goddamn ludicrous to even suggest the holotech has anything to do with hard scifi.
It’s a pure fantasy machine only limited by the writer’s imagination, nothing else.
Yeah, a bad copy that’s not affecting all of your senses as has lots of limitations?
Maybe because it’s older technology than a holodeck? You do understand how the progress of technology usually involves the solving of problems and limitations, right?
I don’t think you understand what our senses are capable of.
You’re literally just handwaving all the issues. Which is completely fine, as long as you stop pretending there’s some actually reasonable science behind this fantasy-machine.
The only limitations it has is the writer’s imagination and the budget of the show. That’s all. It’s soft scifi.
None of your explanations have even remotely explained anything. But you’re refusing to accept they are actually handwavy soft scifi, which they very much are.
Saying “volumetric displays and forcefields” doesn’t make it rational that a group of people in a limited size room could think they’re all in very different places in massive village for instance. That I could play tennis with you in the same village while there’s a whole dancing competition going on in the same village but 3km away, with competitors and real people in thw audience.
If you don’t realise that 16 people in a small room the size of a couple of buses couldn’t do that unless they’re being essentially completely neurologically manipulated and just still instead of actually being on a tennis court, then I can accept it. It’s completely just fooling your brain and not actually doing any of the things. That’s acceptable. Pretending that saying “volumetric displays and forcefields” is a good explanation for any of that is beyond ridiculous.
It’s a soft scifi fantasy machine. Maybe you’re just allergic to even thinking you might be watching fantasy instead of scifi and that just irks you doesn’t it.
But honestly, Outlander is harder scifi than this. And it’s not especially technological. (It still is marked as scifi though or was at least)
You’re literally just handwaving all the issues. Which is completely fine, as long as you stop pretending there’s some actually reasonable science behind this fantasy-machine.
There is, and…
Saying “volumetric displays and forcefields” doesn’t make it rational
Oh, just any technobabble ever is enough to make something hard scifi and reasonable to you? I don’t think you’ve ever used reason, then. Which is sort of the issue here.
You can’t reason why the contradictions aren’t contradictions, you just stomp your foot “no no no I’m right and I don’t have to reason in it any way”
The second quote is actually shortened for subtitles. The whole quote is “it’s not real booze, you’re in a holosuite, you remember?”
And your evidence for the holographic food akd drink being real was… what? I don’t seem to recall seeing any. Granted this was more than a month ago. This just came up on a rewatch and reminded me of this conversation, so I came to add it.
But sure, the holographic technology is just beyond my grasp even though it’s definitely explained in detail and definitely the way you say it is, despite the several glaring contradictions in your theory and the actual shows.
Guess I still just don’t understand this non-existent theory of yours. But the holo-tech is definitely described well and exactly as you have said. Deeeeefinitely.
Literally the first episode of TNG. And then look at other holodeck epodides from there, going up to Voyager. But the first episode of TNG already explains everything.
I think I’ve already said that before too, so now I’m wondering if you’re just afraid to lose this argument if you actually go and watch TNG…
And “real booze” is a matter of perspective; Scotty didn’t consider the booze he got from the replicator either.
That’s because a holodeck isn’t merely a projection on the walls. It’s been described a few times as a complex array of volumetric displays, forcefields, and replicated materials that shift around the individuals participating in the holodeck.
Basically, the way it’s described, the illusion shouldn’t work from your perspective as viewers/audience.
Thats like saying “it works because of magic”
No amount of any technology would be able to make people think they’re in a vast desert with others several kilometers away when theyre actually standing within arms reach.
But the technobabble handwaving works for me.
There’s just absolutely zero point in pretending the holodecks are “hard scifi”
I mean… If you’re wearing a VR headset and move via treadmill… Then you’re pretty much halfway towards what holodeck does already. So now imagine it’s a few centuries into the future.
Yeah, a bad copy that’s not affecting all of your senses as has lots of limitations?
VR is fun but it’s nowhere near fooling the senses properly. Proprioception, acceleration.
You refuse to answer questions which I say can’t be answered while still not agreeing with me that it’s goddamn ludicrous to even suggest the holotech has anything to do with hard scifi.
It’s a pure fantasy machine only limited by the writer’s imagination, nothing else.
Maybe because it’s older technology than a holodeck? You do understand how the progress of technology usually involves the solving of problems and limitations, right?
That’s all the answer you need.
I don’t think you understand what our senses are capable of.
You’re literally just handwaving all the issues. Which is completely fine, as long as you stop pretending there’s some actually reasonable science behind this fantasy-machine.
The only limitations it has is the writer’s imagination and the budget of the show. That’s all. It’s soft scifi.
None of your explanations have even remotely explained anything. But you’re refusing to accept they are actually handwavy soft scifi, which they very much are.
Saying “volumetric displays and forcefields” doesn’t make it rational that a group of people in a limited size room could think they’re all in very different places in massive village for instance. That I could play tennis with you in the same village while there’s a whole dancing competition going on in the same village but 3km away, with competitors and real people in thw audience.
If you don’t realise that 16 people in a small room the size of a couple of buses couldn’t do that unless they’re being essentially completely neurologically manipulated and just still instead of actually being on a tennis court, then I can accept it. It’s completely just fooling your brain and not actually doing any of the things. That’s acceptable. Pretending that saying “volumetric displays and forcefields” is a good explanation for any of that is beyond ridiculous.
It’s a soft scifi fantasy machine. Maybe you’re just allergic to even thinking you might be watching fantasy instead of scifi and that just irks you doesn’t it.
But honestly, Outlander is harder scifi than this. And it’s not especially technological. (It still is marked as scifi though or was at least)
There is, and…
… It does.
But that’s OK. You don’t have to understand it.
Oh, just any technobabble ever is enough to make something hard scifi and reasonable to you? I don’t think you’ve ever used reason, then. Which is sort of the issue here.
You can’t reason why the contradictions aren’t contradictions, you just stomp your foot “no no no I’m right and I don’t have to reason in it any way”
I’m guessing you consider Rick & Morty intellectual hard scifi as well, with those criteria.
The second quote is actually shortened for subtitles. The whole quote is “it’s not real booze, you’re in a holosuite, you remember?”
And your evidence for the holographic food akd drink being real was… what? I don’t seem to recall seeing any. Granted this was more than a month ago. This just came up on a rewatch and reminded me of this conversation, so I came to add it.
But sure, the holographic technology is just beyond my grasp even though it’s definitely explained in detail and definitely the way you say it is, despite the several glaring contradictions in your theory and the actual shows.
Guess I still just don’t understand this non-existent theory of yours. But the holo-tech is definitely described well and exactly as you have said. Deeeeefinitely.
Literally the first episode of TNG. And then look at other holodeck epodides from there, going up to Voyager. But the first episode of TNG already explains everything.
I think I’ve already said that before too, so now I’m wondering if you’re just afraid to lose this argument if you actually go and watch TNG…
And “real booze” is a matter of perspective; Scotty didn’t consider the booze he got from the replicator either.