PDA

View Full Version : Inconsistencies in “2010” (spoilers)



informant
2002-Mar-20, 06:22 PM
Here are some nit-picks:

1. Since this isn’t Star Trek, I have a problem figuring out how they could detect chlorophyll in Europa beneath the ice, when they weren’t even in orbit around that moon. Or could it be done?

2. During “aerobraking”, there are several scenes where the Leonov looks too large when compared to Jupiter (or too far away from it; it was supposed to be scratching Jupiter’s upper atmosphere).

3. Incorporated into the Leonov is a module which rotates, obviously in order to produce artificial gravity. The module is always rotating, except for one time: when the Leonov is attached to the Discovery, in order to use its fuel in the journey back to Earth. It makes sense that the module could not have been rotating when the Leonov was using the Discovery as first stage.
But there are two other occasions in which - at least that’s what seems sensible to me – the module’s rotation should have also been stopped, but it isn’t:

-First, when the Leonov undergoes the “aerobraking” on the dark side of Jupiter. They even had to use shields there; wouldn’t it have been better to stop the module for that maneuver?

-Second, at the end of the picture, when they are evading Jupiter. Wouldn’t it have been safer – and perhaps even given the Leonov some additional speed (?)– to keep the module stopped during those critical stages?

4. Again during aerobraking, there’s an interesting scene in which Heywood Floyd is hastily visited by a female Russian cosmonaut who lays down next to him, frightened. Then we see a small photograph fly through the air and get stuck on a wall, presumably because of the “force” of aerobraking. The photo falls back again when the aerobraking ends.
For years I thought this was a neat illustration of how things work in space. But recently I realized: the Leonov’s module was rotating during aerobraking! Therefore the artificial gravity should have remained the same, meaning that the photo should have remained in the same place at all times!
I don’t think that the centrifugal force during aerobreaking, or whatever it was that they were being subjected to, would be able to counteract the rotation of the module – would it?

5. Speaking of artificial gravity, why does everyone on the Leonov use those special coloured shoes? Grip shoes, like in “2001”?… But the Leonov had artificial gravity, they wouldn’t need it! Not always, anyway.

6. When the Leonov rendezvous with the Discovery, they send out a cosmonaut – Max Brailovsky – and an American engineer – Walter Curnow – to board the Discovery. This is a very impressive scene, especially since Curnow is not an astronaut, and he almost gets space sick. However… Later, when they reach the monolith, Max uses a space pod (like the ones in “2001”) to explore it. So why didn’t they use the space pod to reach the Discovery?

7. Speaking of which, there’s a plot line that really annoys me. After they get close to the monolith, the Russian captain, Tanya, decides to send Max in a pod to explore it. Floyd disagrees, whining that it’s too dangerous, but Tanya wants to show him who’s the boss, and she insists on sending Max away.
For God’s sake, if they thought the monolith might be dangerous, why didn’t they just send an unmanned pod?! The whole drama seems pathetic in the light of this.

8. Of course Heywood Floyd, being the Roy Scheider that he is, was right, and David Bowman chooses that precise moment to emerge from the monolith, which leaves Max’s pod spinning helpless in space. There are some moments of tension, but in later scenes we see Max back in the Leonov again, alive and well.
The way the pod is left spinning looks really dangerous. I wonder how Max was able to stabilize it again. It didn’t seem easy at all!

9. By the way, why did Bowman choose to exit the monolith in such an explosive manner, endangering Max’s life? Surely, he could have picked other moments to exit the monolith, or milder ways to do it.


<font size=-1>[Corrected "aerobraking". ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: informant on 2002-03-20 15:35 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: informant on 2002-11-16 14:58 ]</font>

Kaptain K
2002-Mar-20, 07:31 PM
… Later, when they reach the monolith, Max uses a space pod (like the ones in “2001”) to explore it. So why didn’t they use the space pod to reach the Discovery?
Maybe, they "borrowed" the pod from Discovery.

SeanF
2002-Mar-20, 07:34 PM
On 2002-03-20 13:22, informant wrote:

4. Again during aerobreak, there’s an interesting scene in which Heywood Floyd is hastily visited by a female Russian cosmonaut who lays down next to him, frightened. Then we see a small photograph fly through the air and get stuck on a wall, presumably because of the “force” of aerobreak. The photo falls back again when the aerobreaking ends.
For years I thought this was a neat illustration of how things work in space. But recently I realized: the Leonov’s module was rotating during aerobreak! Therefore the artificial gravity should have remained the same, meaning that the photo should have remained in the same place at all times!
I don’t think that the centrifugal force during aerobreak, or whatever it was that they were being subjected to, would be able to counteract the rotation of the module – would it?


A while back I was driving down a road about midnight when a cat ran out right in front of my car. I have never slammed on my brakes as hard as I did that night. Even though the gravity of the Earth was unchanged, the bag of popcorn on the passenger seat ended up on the floor and the bowling ball in the trunk put down the folding back seat and came through.

It's called inertia. No, the rotation of the module would not keep the photograph sitting down during that kind of deceleration.

(Side note: I thought that cosmonaut was *so* cute!)



5. Speaking of artificial gravity, why does everyone on the Leonov use those special coloured shoes? Grip shoes, like in “2001”?… But the Leonov had artificial gravity, they wouldn’t need it! Not always, anyway.


Maybe they just didn't want to be taking off and putting on the shoes everytime they moved from one part of the ship to the other?

Maybe the filmmakers didn't want to get caught with them not wearing the shoes in a non-rotating section of the ship, so they made the actors wear 'em all the time? /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif



8. Of course Heywood Floyd, being the Roy Scheider that he is, was right, and David Bowman chooses that precise moment to emerge from the monolith, which leaves Max’s pod spinning helpless in space. There are some moments of tension, but in later scenes we see Max back in the Leonov again, alive and well.
The way the pod is left spinning looks really dangerous. I wonder how Max was able to stabilize it again. It didn’t seem easy at all!


Okay, I admit it's been a while since I've seen 2010, but my recollection is that Max was lost - I don't recall seeing him again after that point, but I do recall the other characters' reactions (specifically Curnow's) as being consistent with Max having been killed . . .

Donnie B.
2002-Mar-20, 07:51 PM
I haven't seen the film recently (or read the book at all), but I'll take a swing at some of these...



1. Since this isn’t Star Trek, I have a problem figuring out how they could detect chlorophyll in Europa beneath the ice, when they weren’t even in orbit around that moon. Or could it be done?


I would assume they used spectroscopy, the same way we can determine the composition of distant stars and interstellar gas clouds. Probably quite feasible.



2. During “aerobreak”, there are several scenes where the Leonov looks too large when compared to Jupiter (or too far away from it; it was supposed to be scratching Jupiter’s upper atmosphere).


Can't recall, but you're probably right.

Incidentally, it's "aerobraking" (as in the "brakes" on your car), not "aerobreaking". At least, if you do it right /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif



3. ...when the Leonov undergoes the “aerobreak” on the dark side of Jupiter. They even had to use shields there; wouldn’t it have been better to stop the module for that maneuver? ...at the end of the picture, when they are evading Jupiter. Wouldn’t it have been safer – and perhaps even given the Leonov some additional speed (?)– to keep the module stopped during those critical stages?


That would depend, I guess. It may have been somewhat "costly" to stop the rotation and restart it (the energy to do that has to come from somewhere) so maybe it would have been avoided unless it was absolutely necessary.

It wouldn't have affected Leonov's speed at all, though. F=mA, no matter if part of the m is rotating.



4. Again during aerobreak, ...we see a small photograph fly through the air and get stuck on a wall, presumably because of the “force” of aerobreak. The photo falls back again when the aerobreaking ends.
...the artificial gravity should have remained the same, meaning that the photo should have remained in the same place at all times!
I don’t think that the centrifugal force during aerobreak, or whatever it was that they were being subjected to, would be able to counteract the rotation of the module – would it?


Actually, this is fine. Gravity is a vector force. Here on Earth the vector always points toward the middle of the planet. In the rotating section, while "cruising", the vector would point "outward". Under acceleration, the direction would change; it would be the vector sum of the centrifugal force and the acceleration of the spacecraft. Thus it would angle back toward the rear of the Leonov.

If any mistake was made, it was that the two humans should felt the same force as the photo, and probably should have ended up plastered to the same bulkhead as it did -- unless they were strapped in (can't remember).



5. Speaking of artificial gravity, why does everyone on the Leonov use those special coloured shoes? Grip shoes, like in “2001”?… But the Leonov had artificial gravity, they wouldn’t need it! Not always, anyway.


Don't know; don't remember. Maybe to keep static electricity under control? And there were parts of the spacecraft that weren't rotating; maybe they wore them to be prepared in case they had to enter those areas. Or maybe it was just a point of continuity with the original film.



6. When the Leonov rendezvous with the Discovery, they send out a cosmonaut – Max Brailovsky – and an American engineer – Walter Curnow – to board the Discovery. ...Later, when they reach the monolith, Max uses a space pod (like the ones in “2001”) to explore it. So why didn’t they use the space pod to reach the Discovery?


Perhaps it was one of Discovery's pods. Perhaps Leonov had no pods of its own.



7. ...if they thought the monolith might be dangerous, why didn’t they just send an unmanned pod?! The whole drama seems pathetic in the light of this.


Well, by the same logic, why not send an unmanned probe to Jupiter in the first place?



8. ...I wonder how Max was able to stabilize it again. It didn’t seem easy at all!


Any such vehicle would have a computerized control system to respond to anything that knocked it out of whatever orientation or trajectory it was being told to follow by the pilot's inputs. Apparently it did its job and got the pod stabilized.



9. By the way, why did Bowman choose to exit the monolith in such an explosive manner, endangering Max’s life? Surely, he could have picked other moments to exit the monolith, or milder ways to do it.


Um... let me think... because he wanted to make a dramatic entrance? Dunno, I'm not privy to the thoughts of highly evolved supermensch.

But it sorta makes you want to say "Stop, Dave...", doesn't it?
/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

informant
2002-Mar-20, 07:56 PM
------------------------------------------------------------------------

… Later, when they reach the monolith, Max uses a space pod (like the ones in “2001”) to explore it. So why didn’t they use the space pod to reach the Discovery?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe, they "borrowed" the pod from Discovery.

No, they did not. They used a different pod.

informant
2002-Mar-20, 08:02 PM
It's called inertia. No, the rotation of the module would not keep the photograph sitting down during that kind of deceleration.

My misconception. Thank you for clearing it up.



(Side note: I thought that cosmonaut was *so* cute!)

/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif She sure was sweet.



Okay, I admit it's been a while since I've seen 2010, but my recollection is that Max was lost - I don't recall seeing him again after that point, but I do recall the other characters' reactions (specifically Curnow's) as being consistent with Max having been killed . . .

I am pretty sure (oops!, should I risk saying that again?…) that Max shows up again later. I will check it and get back to you in a few days.




<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: informant on 2002-03-20 15:31 ]</font>

informant
2002-Mar-20, 08:27 PM
1. Since this isn’t Star Trek, I have a problem figuring out how they could detect chlorophyll in Europa beneath the ice, when they weren’t even in orbit around that moon. Or could it be done?
------------------------------------------------------------------------

I would assume they used spectroscopy, the same way we can determine the composition of distant stars and interstellar gas clouds. Probably quite feasible.


Can you use spectroscopy to “see” through a (probably) thick layer of ice?



Incidentally, it's "aerobraking" (as in the "brakes" on your car), not "aerobreaking". At least, if you do it right

I will correct it.


3. ...when the Leonov undergoes the “aerobreak” on the dark side of Jupiter. They even had to use shields there; wouldn’t it have been better to stop the module for that maneuver? ...at the end of the picture, when they are evading Jupiter. Wouldn’t it have been safer – and perhaps even given the Leonov some additional speed (?)– to keep the module stopped during those critical stages?
------------------------------------------------------------------------

That would depend, I guess. It may have been somewhat "costly" to stop the rotation and restart it (the energy to do that has to come from somewhere) so maybe it would have been avoided unless it was absolutely necessary.

It wouldn't have affected Leonov's speed at all, though. F=mA, no matter if part of the m is rotating.



Actually, this is fine. Gravity is a vector force. Here on Earth the vector always points toward the middle of the planet. In the rotating section, while "cruising", the vector would point "outward". Under acceleration, the direction would change; it would be the vector sum of the centrifugal force and the acceleration of the spacecraft. Thus it would angle back toward the rear of the Leonov.

I thought SeanF had made things clear to me, but now there’s something that still bugs me. Gravity “pulls” you down when you are close enough to a planet, but they were probably moving along an orbit. Shouldn’t they be in zero-g conditions[Added later: apart from the artificial gravity, of course.]?


If any mistake was made, it was that the two humans should felt the same force as the photo, and probably should have ended up plastered to the same bulkhead as it did -- unless they were strapped in (can't remember).

Actually, they do something of the sort. Floyd and Zenia (I think that was the cosmonaut’s name) are pressed against the wall too.


Or maybe it was just a point of continuity with the original film.

Well, in the first film the hostess used grip shoes in the shuttle, which had no artificial gravity, but no one wore grip shoes on the Discovery, for instance.



Perhaps it was one of Discovery's pods. Perhaps Leonov had no pods of its own.


The Discovery had one pod left, but they chose to use a different pod, which was launched from the Leonov.



7. ...if they thought the monolith might be dangerous, why didn’t they just send an unmanned pod?! The whole drama seems pathetic in the light of this.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, by the same logic, why not send an unmanned probe to Jupiter in the first place?

My main point here is that this was the first time that any of them got close to the monolith. The monolith had gobbled up Dave Bowman 9 years before, so it was legitimate to be cautious, and they could have done it quite easily by sending an unmanned pod in advance. If nothing odd happened to it, they could later send people.
By the way, this is how it is done in the novel.


But it sorta makes you want to say "Stop, Dave...", doesn't it?

/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: informant on 2002-03-20 15:44 ]</font>

SeanF
2002-Mar-20, 08:53 PM
On 2002-03-20 15:27, informant wrote:


Actually, this is fine. Gravity is a vector force. Here on Earth the vector always points toward the middle of the planet. In the rotating section, while "cruising", the vector would point "outward". Under acceleration, the direction would change; it would be the vector sum of the centrifugal force and the acceleration of the spacecraft. Thus it would angle back toward the rear of the Leonov.

I thought SeanF had made things clear to me, but now there’s something that still bugs me. Gravity “pulls” you down when you are close enough to a planet, but they were probably moving along an orbit. Shouldn’t they be in zero-g conditions[Added later: apart from the artificial gravity, of course.]?



Yup, no actual gravity, but the rotation of the module would provide a gravity-like pull towards the "bottom" of the room.

It's still basically what I posted above about my car ride. The Earth's gravity continued to pull the bowling ball down, but it's inertia pulled it forward when the car decelerated.

The rotation of the module would continue to pull the photograph "down" on the Leonov, but it's inertia pulled it forward when the Leonov decelerated.

Of course, once the picture hit the front wall, why didn't the rotation pull it down to the floor like gravity? Answer: because of friction between the picture and the wall . . . /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

WHarris
2002-Mar-21, 10:57 AM
8. Of course Heywood Floyd, being the Roy Scheider that he is, was right, and David Bowman chooses that precise moment to emerge from the monolith, which leaves Max’s pod spinning helpless in space. There are some moments of tension, but in later scenes we see Max back in the Leonov again, alive and well.
The way the pod is left spinning looks really dangerous. I wonder how Max was able to stabilize it again. It didn’t seem easy at all!


I was under the impression that Max was killed.

Tom
2002-Mar-21, 03:14 PM
On 2002-03-20 15:27, informant wrote:
My main point here is that this was the first time that any of them got close to the monolith. The monolith had gobbled up Dave Bowman 9 years before

Nitpick: All the earth knew from the first mission was that HAL was rogue. Bowman's wherabouts should have been unknown... and, as I write this, I realise it was never addressed in 2010. They didn't look for his body, IIRC.

Anyway, there was no reason to think that the monolith was anything but some type of radio transmitter, as was the one on the moon.

Gaaaaah! Don't they ever learn: "Don't mess with the aliens or their stuff!"

Tom

"What does THIS button do?"

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Tom on 2002-03-21 10:15 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Tom on 2002-03-21 10:16 ]</font>

informant
2002-Mar-21, 03:25 PM
Tom wote:

Anyway, there was no reason to think that the monolith was anything but some type of radio transmitter, as was the one on the moon.

They knew that Bowman had disappeared immediately after he had gone to explore the monolith. They even had a recording of his last words, "My God, it's full of stars!"
So obviously something very odd had happened near the monolith.


Nitpick: All the earth knew from the first mission was that HAL was rogue. Bowman's wherabouts should have been unknown... and, as I write this, I realise it was never addressed in 2010. They didn't look for his body, IIRC.

Well, although HAL had been disconnected by Bowman, perhaps the Discovery still was able to send some sort of information back to Earth, automatically, and it never recorded the return of Bowman's pod.
And if Bowman had returned to the Discovery, it would have been very unlikely that he wouldn't send some message to Earth before he died.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: informant on 2002-03-21 10:31 ]</font>

informant
2002-Mar-25, 08:42 AM
OK, I've got "2010" on VHS, and I watched it again this weekend.

I was mistaken about some of the nitpicks that I pointed out. I must apologize for that.
All I can say in my defense is that I felt that I had watched "2010" enough times not to be mistaken (even though it had been a while since the last time...) I was wrong.

Corrections:

Max indeed never shows up again after the incident with the monolith. (Ouch!) Therefore, even though no one states it, it can be assumed that he was killed.
I still don't like it as a plotline (why would Bowman - or whoever was controlling him - pick that time to exit the monolith?), but I can't say that it's an inconsistency. So please scratch nr. 8.

They don't always wear those special shoes on the Leonov. There are scenes in which they are wearing regular shoes. In fact, the shoes are very cleverly handled. They only appear in places were the astronauts would in fact need them.
My bad again, and actually impressed with the attention to detail displayed in the picture. So scratch nr. 5.

On the other hand, I do have another nitpick...

When the Leonov sends a probe to Europa, this piece of dialogue takes place:

Floyd: 'Chlorophyll! Jesus! Is it organic?'
Orlov: 'I think so.'

How could chlorophyll be anything but organic?!
And, assuming that chlorophyll could be inorganic, how would they be able to tell from above the ice?


[Replaced 'Floyd' with 'Bowman'.]



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: informant on 2002-11-16 15:07 ]</font>

Firefox
2002-Mar-25, 03:02 PM
I suppose another goof would be the EVA pod in Discovery's launch bay. As I recall, one pod went out of control when Poole was killed. Dave lost a second pod when trying to re-enter the ship. He then used the third and final pod to enter the Monolith. Unless Bowman retrieved one of the other pods, shouldn't they all be absent by 2010?

By the way, though it may be old news, they're producing 3001. As to why they'd skip 2061, which has a far more interesting plot, I have no idea.


-Fox

informant
2002-Mar-25, 04:46 PM
The pod that was left on the Discovery was supposed to be the one in which David Bowman had gone after Frank Poole's body.
He had blown its door away in order to return to the Discovery, but somehow he was able to retrieve it later.
I suppose that, if HAL could remote-control the pods, Bowman would be able to do the same. Or he could have used the remaining pod to go pick it up.

With regard to 2061, although I personally agree with you - I think that 2061 could be made into a good picture - , there seem to be many people who prefer 3001 to 2061.

Donnie B.
2002-Mar-25, 07:37 PM
On 2002-03-25 03:42, informant wrote:
Floyd: 'Chlorophyll! Jesus! Is it organic?'
Orlov: 'I think so.'

How could chlorophyll be anything but organic?!
And, assuming that chlorophyll could be inorganic, how would they be able to tell from above the ice?


There are two usages of the word "organic".

1) In chemistry, it has a technical meaning: all compounds containing carbon. By this definition, chlorophyll is definitely and always organic.

2) In popular usage, "organic" is sometimes used to mean "alive" or "a by-product of life processes". Since Heywood Floyd is not a chemist or biologist, perhaps we can forgive him for using the term in this sloppy way.

kucharek
2002-Mar-26, 05:29 AM
On 2002-03-25 10:02, Firefox wrote:
I suppose another goof would be the EVA pod in Discovery's launch bay. As I recall, one pod went out of control when Poole was killed. Dave lost a second pod when trying to re-enter the ship. He then used the third and final pod to enter the Monolith. Unless Bowman retrieved one of the other pods, shouldn't they all be absent by 2010?
-Fox

IIRC there is a sentence or two about this in the book "2010". Bowman got "his" second pod under remote control and brought it back. He replaced the blown hatch with a spare.

informant
2002-Mar-26, 07:21 AM
Almost right, kochareck (I went to see last night): Bowman did use remote control to bring back the pod. But he didn't repair it. The pod was still without a hatch when the Leonov arrived to Jupiter.
We do get the impression that the people from the Leonov put a hatch in it later, so perhaps there was a spare hatch around.


Donnie B. wrote:

There are two usages of the word "organic".

1) In chemistry, it has a technical meaning: all compounds containing carbon. By this definition, chlorophyll is definitely and always organic.

2) In popular usage, "organic" is sometimes used to mean "alive" or "a by-product of life processes". Since Heywood Floyd is not a chemist or biologist, perhaps we can forgive him for using the term in this sloppy way.

I am aware of that.
So, according to definition 1, chlorophyll is always organic, and there would be no point in asking the question.
According to definition 2 (the "popular" one, the one most fitting to Floyd, who was not a biologist, and the one I was actually thinking of), they would need to know if the chlorophyll was in a living organism, in order to answer. I don't think they would be able to tell that from above the ice.
Floyd can certainly be forgiven for his question, but should Orlov be forgiven for his answer?


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: informant on 2002-03-26 02:23 ]</font>

kucharek
2002-Mar-26, 10:14 AM
On 2002-03-26 02:21, informant wrote:
Almost right, kochareck (I went to see last night): Bowman did use remote control to bring back the pod. But he didn't repair it. The pod was still without a hatch when the Leonov arrived to Jupiter.
We do get the impression that the people from the Leonov put a hatch in it later, so perhaps there was a spare hatch around.

Now that you say it: In the book, they use the pod to investigate the monolith, under remote control, and for this purpose, the missing hatch wasn't minded.

Harald



kochareck

Jeez. Kucharek.

Firefox
2002-Mar-26, 12:01 PM
On 2002-03-26 05:14, kucharek wrote:Now that you say it: In the book, they use the pod to investigate the monolith, under remote control, and for this purpose, the missing hatch wasn't minded.

Guess that's what I get for not reading the book. ::shrug::

informant
2002-Mar-26, 03:30 PM
kochareck


Jeez. Kucharek.

Sorry.

Donnie B.
2002-Mar-26, 09:38 PM
On 2002-03-26 02:21, informant wrote:
...they would need to know if the chlorophyll was in a living organism, in order to answer. I don't think they would be able to tell that from above the ice.
Floyd can certainly be forgiven for his question, but should Orlov be forgiven for his answer?


Hmm... speculation (I'm no biologist either)...

Let's say chlorophyll is a fairly complex substance (that much I'm confident about) and is very unlikely to occur naturally except in the context of some metabolic process (that's the part I'm not sure of).

In that case, Orlov's answer could simply be an educated assessment of probabilities: "I think it's alive because there's no other plausible way for it to be there."

A slightly more sophisticated variant is that he has measured the environmental conditions in the area of the chlorophyll signal and has ruled out any possibility of some non-metabolic process that could produce the stuff (it's too cold, or some critical precursor is not present, or...)

Or perhaps he's just seen the new prototype life-sensor go offscale high...

informant
2002-Apr-02, 05:59 PM
The problem is that Orlov says something to the effect of 'I think so. I'll bring the probe down.'
This suggests that he expected to find out if the chlorophyll was organic by bringing the probe closer to the surface.

I think I'll stick to the life sensor explanation... /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

kucharek
2002-Apr-26, 07:04 AM
Hey, one of the lost pods of Discovery reappears in the junkyard of that scrap dealer on Tatooine in Episode 1. Just when they walk out into the junkyard, you can see it behind the Jedi. Must be the one Bowman made his final flight with, as Star Wars took place "A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away...". So Bowman not only travelled in space, but also in time...

odysseus0101
2002-Apr-26, 02:15 PM
So Bowman not only travelled in space, but also in time...


It's just a jump to the left...

kucharek
2002-Apr-27, 03:20 PM
On 2002-04-26 10:15, odysseus0101 wrote:


So Bowman not only travelled in space, but also in time...


It's just a jump to the left...

You suggest, time-travel becomes possible by breaking the P symmetry?
Let's start to collect that cobalt 60 stuff...

/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif