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
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 your “proof” that all food and drinks are real despite the contradictions we have?
“real booze” is a matter of perspective
Yeah, it is. And the perspective is that of someone who doesn’t consume anything. But even he could consume the virtual beverage.
I’ve literally shown you several examples, you’ve merely implied one… from a pilot.
Next you’re gonna argue that Worf is canonically wrong because he doesn’t look like they do in TOS. :D Same exact logic.
The holodecks being inconsistent and literally a fantasy machine has been my point all the time. It’s you who’s argued that they’re hard scifi and completely explained. Yet you’re unable to explain anything, just repeating “tng ep1” as if that’s an argument.
I really can’t have “lost” an argument when you’ve not even presented one.
When you create a bar or a restaurant on the holodeck, all the food and drink there is real. You really eat and drink something, it has real flavour.
I’ve priced that’s not true several times. You’ve not backed it up at all. Riker getting wet or Wesley throwing a snowball doesn’t mean “all food and drink is real” just because some water was
A typical holodeck consisted of a room equipped with a hologrid containing omnidirectional holographic diodes, enabling holographic projections and holograms. Elements of transporter technology and replicators were used to create holodeck matter by the manipulation of photons contained within force fields to give objects the illusion of substance as well as actual matter. This matter could exist outside of the holodeck for brief periods of time (such as snow) before they would lose cohesion and revert back to energy without the support of the hologrid. (TNG: “Encounter at Farpoint”, “The Big Goodbye”, “Elementary, Dear Data”).
Since holodeck technology could be used with replicator technology, there were some instances where real objects were replicated within the holodeck and used to interact with the holographic program and/or users for a more realistic experience; since these objects were real material composed of matter, they could leave the holodeck fully intact. Examples of this include Wesley Crusher still being wet after leaving the holodeck after falling into replicated water, (TNG: “Encounter at Farpoint”) Lieutenant Commander Data being able to take a drawing of the Enterprise on a piece of paper out into the hallway, (TNG: “Elementary, Dear Data”) and a wayward snowball being able to pass through the holodeck doors and strike Captain Picard. (TNG: “Angel One”) Scents were also simulated in this way.
Holograms could be augmented with force beams to simulate solid, tangible objects or with replicator technology to create actual solid matter such as foodstuffs.
Now I’m quite done with the pointless argument. If you still think you know better, save it for a brick wall.
None of what you’ve linked states that all food and drink are real. In fact, the passage specifically says (didn’t read it, did you, you dolt) that
there were some instances where real objects were replicated within the holodeck and used to interact with the holographic program
SOME INSTANCES
Since when did “some instances water is replicated” mean “all food and drink, ever, is always replicated”?
You didn’t have a good whatever your native language is called in school, did you? Because your reading comprehension sucks.
I’ve constantly kept the point that they’re not hard scifi and completely writers will, complete soft scifi. You’ve taken the position theyre hard scifi and that ALL food and drink is replicated. You’ve a stated something incorrect. I have not.
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”
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.
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.
The first episode, Riker getting wet?
That’s your “proof” that all food and drinks are real despite the contradictions we have?
Yeah, it is. And the perspective is that of someone who doesn’t consume anything. But even he could consume the virtual beverage.
I’ve literally shown you several examples, you’ve merely implied one… from a pilot.
Next you’re gonna argue that Worf is canonically wrong because he doesn’t look like they do in TOS. :D Same exact logic.
The holodecks being inconsistent and literally a fantasy machine has been my point all the time. It’s you who’s argued that they’re hard scifi and completely explained. Yet you’re unable to explain anything, just repeating “tng ep1” as if that’s an argument.
I really can’t have “lost” an argument when you’ve not even presented one.
I’ve priced that’s not true several times. You’ve not backed it up at all. Riker getting wet or Wesley throwing a snowball doesn’t mean “all food and drink is real” just because some water was
By gods you are thick…
Well let’s gooooooo to memory alpha…:
Now I’m quite done with the pointless argument. If you still think you know better, save it for a brick wall.
Oh you’re done being wrong? Good.
None of what you’ve linked states that all food and drink are real. In fact, the passage specifically says (didn’t read it, did you, you dolt) that
Since when did “some instances water is replicated” mean “all food and drink, ever, is always replicated”?
You didn’t have a good whatever your native language is called in school, did you? Because your reading comprehension sucks.
I’ve constantly kept the point that they’re not hard scifi and completely writers will, complete soft scifi. You’ve taken the position theyre hard scifi and that ALL food and drink is replicated. You’ve a stated something incorrect. I have not.
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.