Re: In search of the perfect Disassembler

T.M. Sommers wrote:
> Beth wrote:
> > If you fired a laser at me - rather than my (meant to be comical)
"disco
> > lights" / "torch" example - then - ouch! - it would burn like
buggery...oh
> > dear, a hole seems to have been burnt straight through my hand
>
> That would depend on the intensity of the laser. The laser in
> your CDROM drive, for instance, isn't going to burn a hole in
> anything.

True; But, then, I wasn't really trying to say that all LASERs burn
holes...

After all, if that were true, then my "optical mouse" would have long since
burnt a hole in the mouse mat!! And CDs wouldn't be very useful: Play them
a few times and the LASER burns them thinner and thinner until there's just
the middle bit left! Then the LASER would then burn a hole through the top
of the CD drive, the top of your PC and start burning holes in the
ceiling!! ;)

We were generally on the subject of using LASERs in a "weaponry" context,
so the "assumption" was that it would be of a "offensive grade" in
intensity...of course, not all LASERs are that strong...I wasn't trying to
suggest that but, you know, read the above "in context" of the whole
"shooting at Klingons" using-it-as-a-weapon context...

> > ...but you
> > couldn't knock me over with it, as it doesn't have mass, so doesn't
exert
> > "force"
>
> Sorry, but no. Photons have no rest mass, but they do have mass,
> because they have energy. The full Einstein equation is:
>
> E**2 = p**2 + m**2
>
> in units where c == 1, where p is momentum and m is rest mass and
> E is energy. So even when m = 0, there is still momentum and
> kinetic energy. Since F = dp/dt, when a photon bounces off
> something its momentum changes and thus it exerts a force.
>
> Note that if photons had no mass, their trajectories could not be
> bent by gravity, and gravitational lenses would not work, among
> other things.

Yeah, yeah...very "pedantic"...okay, they have "no rest mass" but do have
mass because they have energy...

This is a minor "nit-pick" on a minor part of what I said...the basic point
I was making was, though, that if you're intending to knock someone over
(as I made an example with), then a "photon" is not exactly the "weapon of
choice"...

As even if not "no mass" then it's choosing something so very close to that
which has no mass: "next to no mass" is hardly much of an
"improvement"...it still doesn't really alter the basic point that, of all
things, this is perhaps among the _WORST_ choices you could make...

Might as well scrunch up a ball out of paper and throw that at the Klingon
ship!

> > "F = ma"; If "m" (mass) is zero, then "F" (force) is zero, no matter
how
> > much "oomph" (a) you put into it...
>
> F = ma can only be used classically, and even then only in a
> restricted problem domain.

True, true; It's a Newtonian equation...

BUT, as I was doing, you can often treat these things in a Newtonian
fashion when the "relativistic" elements really don't make any great
difference...even if "next to no mass" rather than "no mass", it's still
hardly much of an "improvement" regards wanting to create a "bashing force"
to knock people over, as was the "context" of the discussion...

Note: NASA used _Newton_, not Einstein, to plot the courses of the Apollo
missions and sending the "probes" out to the outer planets...as the speeds
involved were not "relativistic"...and the "classic" Newtonian view and the
"relativistic" Einsteinian view don't significantly differ at
"non-relativistic speeds", that you can use Newton, no problems, to plot
such courses and they'll remain very accurate...because "relativity" only
really starts to alter things when the speeds are very high (approaching
"lightspeed")...

Okay, okay...a photon _IS_ going at "relativistic speeds" that you were
right to pick up on the "no mass" and correct it as "next to no
mass"...BUT, this doesn't greatly effect the basic underlying point...

Which wasn't entirely "serious" either, of course, as the real "biggest
problem with shooting Klingon ships" is probably the fact that Klingons
don't actually exist - because it's just "science fiction" - rather than
whether your "photon torpedoes" do or don't have "mass"...

> > "Star Wars Episode IV" (which is just
> > "Arthurian legend in disguise", anyway)
>
> Huh? It's based on space operas, on westerns, on Kurasawa movies
> (the 2 robots are from "The Hidden Fortress"), but I see no
> resemblance to the Arthurian stories.

Then you're not looking hard enough...

There's a few "clues" in the names:

"Lancelot" -> "Lan-selot" -> "Han Solot" -> "Han Solo"

[ In a sense, change the initial "L" into an "H" and then pronounce it
"French-style" that you don't actually say the final "t": "Han selo" ]

"Queen Morgana Le Fay" -> "Princess Le Fay Morganna" -> "Princess Leia
Organna"

[ "Demote" her to "princess" from "queen", swap the names around, drop the
initial letters of "F" and "M" (e.g. "Le Fay Morganna" -> "Leay
Organna")...and, again, it's a kind of "ninja disguise": Hiding in plain
sight...these aren't complicated or far-fetched: I mean, "Morgana" ->
"Organna"? Hardly "stretching" anything there, am I? But just sufficiently
"obscured" that it isn't too "obvious"... ]

....who was Arthur's half sister (as Leia is Luke's twin sister)...

Lucas appeared to resist calling Luke something "Arthur"-based or that
would be a little "too obvious"...although, remembering Arthur was Celtic
in origin, "Luke" is very much like "Llug" in pronounciation from Celtic
legends (who was a character, by the way, yes, _LOST HIS HAND_ in one of
the legends...what does Luke do later on? Yeah, exactly :)...also, "Luke"
is basically Lucas' own surname without the "-as" at the end, so it could
just be naming him after himself...it might be that, as well...but the
"Llug" connection - with losing the hand and everything - seems to fit...

Then *ahem* they are Jedi _KNIGHTS_...doesn't having "knights" in a sci-fi
story sound at all "medieval" to you?

And then the old wise man - dressed in "druid robes" - hands the young Luke
his rightful "Excalibur" lightsabre...an "inheritance" from his father,
"the chosen one" (much like the title of "king" is inherited by the
son)...then offers him very Merlin-esque "wisdoms" and "tutors" the young
Luke / Arthur...

Also, though Lucas altered the "plot" after Episode IV and "dropped" the
actually incestuous "suggestion" of something going on between Luke and
Leia, then you had, in that episode (but it was "changed" later and
vanished: Leia became firmly "Morgana Le Fay", Arthur's half-sister, rather
than "Guinevere", Arthur's Love) at least, a suggested "Love triangle"
between Luke, Leia and Han Solo, as the Arthur, Guinevere and Lancelot
"Love triangle" in the medieval Arthurian romances...this is also reason to
see "Han Solo" as a distorted "Lancelot")...

By the way, if you think it's based on "space operas" and "westerns" then
this is _ONLY_ as far as "style" goes (the planet Tatooine does have a bit
of "Western" about it with the desert and the "saloon bar full of rogues"
:)...the story is _KNOWN_ - Lucas has openly stated it - to based on the
"theories" set out in the book "A Hero of a Thousand Faces", which suggests
a "hypothesis" that there are lots of "amazing similarities / coincidences"
in the "mythology" of different peoples around the world...and that, as
history suggests no actual contact between these peoples - yet their
"mythologies" have similar "patterns" in them - then the "hypothesis" of
the "theory" is that, simply, there are "themes" which are simply
"human"...

Hence - and this is _KNOWN_ - Lucas was "inspired" by this book's
"hypothesis" and wondered if the _opposite_ would work...namely, if he
"borrowed" these "patterns" from various "mythologies" (such as the
_ARTHURIAN_ one...though, by the way, this is NOT the only "source" but a
very strong one in at least "Episode IV"...it does move around from
"episode" to "episode", as the "Arthurian" is dropped - Leia changes to
"sister" from an originally suggested "girlfriend" (though, remember,
"incest" wasn't always "unusual" in some of these legends and
mythologies...but perhaps Lucas thought it "bad taste" these days...or
perhaps that was the idea of changing it: To "suggest" incest - to get his
"mythological pattern" in there - but not actually put it explictly in
there...because that is something that would not please "censors" or a
"family audience"...you know, the "mythological patterns" he was copying
from had some "incest" in there - they often did - but this is all very
"distasteful" for "family movies", so rather than actually putting it in
there, just "suggest" it...then completely ignore it...so, it's in people's
minds without actually doing it and falling foul of the "censors" and
people objecting to such things in a "family movie"...similarly, if you
watch "Resevoir Dogs" by Quentin Tarantino, he does NOT actually show the
ear being cut off...the camera pans away at that moment, leaving it to the
"viewer's imagination" (which can create much better "effects" than his low
budget for that ever could have done :)...and it's amazing how many people
_think_ they actually saw the ear come off...but it's NOT shown...so you
couldn't have seen it, because it's not there..."imagination" is a powerful
tool in the writer / director's toolbox :)...

Here's the book in question at Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0691017840/002-4993686-758643
1?v=glance

....and, as you can see in the "review" further down: "famous as George
Lucas' inspiration for 'Star Wars,'"...

This page brilliantly summaries the "Hero's Journey" proposed by Campbell's
"hypothesis" and shows how it applies to both "Star Wars" and to "The
Matrix" too...

As for R2D2 and C3PO? They own as much to Shakespeare's "Puck" or to Scooby
Doo and Shaggy or to Laurel and Hardy...the "straight man" and his "comic
partner" forming the "comedy duo"...this theatrical tradition can be traced
back all the way through TV comedy to pantomime to Shakespeare...until it's
generally accepted that the (then singluar: The "duo" was a later
invention, to allow the "jokes" - which often, of course, require a
"set-up" (tension) and "punchline" (release) that a means of "conversation"
was required (this didn't exist originally, as the singular incarnation was
often a "mime") origin goes back to the Italian stage "Harlequinns"...yes,
those jester / joker-like figures who wear the "chessboard" diamond
clothing (indeed, jesters are based on the "Harlequinn" figure too)...

These were traditionally "mimes" who came onto the stage and "played the
fool" in order to entertain the audience with simple "comedy" between
scenes...there was a very, very simple practical reason for this
"tradition": When changing the sets between scenes, you could drop the
curtain and the "Harlequinn" could step out and "play the fool" in front of
the curtain...while, of course, the stage hands rushed around behind the
curtain, changing the "scenary" as necessary for the next "scene"...

Also - which is probably why the "tradition" remains even for TV and movies
(e.g. other "comedy duo" characters, who "do silly things" in between the
"serious" bits: Shaggy and Scooby are an excellent example :) - is the
simple fact that while the adults are entertained by the "plot", the
children can be kept happy by the "funny man who dances around and makes me
laugh"...simple visual comedy - "slapstick" as it became known when it
developed into its own "art": Charlie Chaplin being, perhaps, its "master"
(note that Laurel and Hardy are often thought of as the "masters" of the
"straight man / silly character" comedy duo as well...this is NOT unusual:
When movies first began, their _ONLY_ "role model" was the stage and so
many "acts" were simply "stage traditions" moved into front of a
camera...the same "comedy duo" pattern, though, can still be found on stage
in the traditional "pantomime" (which as stupid as it is, has its roots far
back in "stage tradition" that nearly all of it - men dressed as women,
women dressed as men, the comedy duo between scenese, etc. - is nothing but
one massive "stage tradition" pattern from start to finish, doing basic
well-known "fairy tales"...this style of stage performance didn't transfer
over to America but it still goes strong, every Christmas, over in the UK
because, as you probably know, there's a very strong "stage tradition" in
the UK...thanks mainly, of course, to Shakespeare, who turned what was
generally considered to be nothing more than a "joke" - being a prostitute
in Shakespeare's time was arguably far more "respectable" than being an
actor! Actor's were thought of as the "scum of the Earth"...yeah,
exactly...how things have changed! All those Hollywood celebrities idolised
the world over in their Bel Air mansions, do owe a little debt to
Mr.Shakespeare for turning their trade into something _respected_ - into
something people took seriously, as a "noble art" from then on :)...usually
featuring the "Chuckle Brothers" playing the parts ;)...

Though the two robots are from "Hidden Fortress", as Lucas has admitted
such...BUT, then where did the two robots in "Hidden Fortress" come from?
It's all the same rather ancient "stage tradition"...these are the "comedy
duo" - "straight man" and "silly character" - who come onto the stage, to
keep the audience entertained while the stage hands change the scenery
behind the stage curtain...originally a singular character and performing
"mime" and "slapstick" in the guise of the "Harlequinn" (which also
inspired the "court jester": Basically, to keep them entertained, royalty
would ask for "that amusing fellow off the stage" to come to the court to
permanently "play the fool" and make them laugh...the traditional
"harlequinn" and "jester" costumes being nigh-on identical :)...when the
"mime" finally opened his mouth to speak, of course, he needed someone to
speak to: Hence, the singular character split into two: The "straight man"
(who acts "mostly serious" in order to "set up" the joke: He provides
"tension"...in other words, "Shaggy" or "Hardy" or "Tom") and the "silly
character" (who does stupid, outrageous or otherwise silly things to
provide "zaniness" to the "straight man"...this is "Scooby", "Laurel" or
"Jerry" :)...

What's interesting, though, with C3PO and R2D2 is that the "formula" is
slightly altered as R2D2 (which actually returns to the "mime" tradition :)
can't actually speak...hence, C3PO - despite being the "straight man" -
indirectly reports what the "silly character" has said...so, he actually
delivers the punchlines, usually in the form of: "R2 says [ insert
punchline ]" or "No, R2, master Luke doesn't need to know that [ insert
punchline ]"...

It's the same thing - and, remember, regards the "hero of a thousand faces"
hypothesis, then the fact that this same "pattern" emerges everywhere _IS_
significant - but is an interesting "spin"...in a sense, this is much
_CLOSER_ to the original "Harlequinn" character who was a "mime"...but the
problem with a "mime" all alone is that when they speak, who are they
speaking to? Hence, the one "mime" turned into the "comedy duo" in order to
have "conversation"...the one character "bouncing" the jokes off the other
(usually, the "bouncee" is the "straight man")...BUT, with this little
"variation", it actually solves the problem while returning to the older
"harlequinn" traditions: R2D2 cannot actually speak - so is a "mime" and
does perform "slapstick" now and again, you'll notice - but C3PO _CAN_ also
have a "conversation" with his mute "mime" friend and actually is able to
do the "straight man" _AND_ deliver the "punchline" as the same
character...by having it that C3PO "reports" what his "mime" friend
says...note that the puppet "Sooty" is also mute and the presenter - one of
the Corbett family - acts in the same capacity, "reporting what Sooty said"
so that he can basically "have a conversation with himself" in order to
deliver the "jokes"...because your "Punchline" style of joke typically
requires two people: "Knock, knock / Who's there? / Doctor / Doctor Who? /
You just said it!!" ;)...

Nevertheless, I'm sure you'll automatically refuse this completely...or
find a terribly pedantic "nit-pick" that such-and-such is such-and-such,
which isn't really useful or interesting to anyone...except for you...in
order to just be able to say "you're wrong!" to me, yet one more
time...because you despise me (not sure why)...and, thus, insist on some
kind of "persecution" thing...which you then "turn around" as if I were
persecuting you (in other context, this would be, no doubt, due to a
non-existent "leftist website" or something...hint, hint)...and then a
single "nit-pick" on the most pedantic, tiniest detail will be your "case"
that I'm "inherently evil" and should be burned at the stake for even
opening my mouth to say "hello"...blah-blah-blah...

*Yawn*

Some stories are worth re-telling...some aren't...

Come on, you know the lines off by heart, surely?

"Now is the Winter of our discontent..."

Yes, your deformed hunchbacked Highness, women are "inherently
evil"...whatever you say...which is clear "justification" to hatch a plot
to "get revenge" on those who never really did you any harm but not massage
the ego...yeah, it's the "evil genius" story all over again: Bullied in the
playground, the "misunderstood hero" (in his own mind) swears "vengence" on
the whole world: "I shall show them all! When I am King and I line them up,
backs to the wall, to issue my punishment, I shall show them!"...

Now, _THAT_ one _IS_ part of "the Hero of the Thousand Faces"
mythology...it is the "evil scientist", the "Bond villan", etc....poor
"misunderstood" Dr.Frankenstein...poor deformed Richard III, who realises
not that his "ugliness" is in his temperament, not his
appearance...blah-blah-blah...

Sorry, being more of the "Maverick Cop" archetype myself, then I think I'm
going to be "on the edge" and "unpredictable"...so much so, I'm just going
to leave "Blofeld" here to his own devices...there's no need to worry...the
"evil genius" always comes stuck by his own dastardly plots, anyway, so
there's really no need to bother...

Yeah, I'm "inherent evil"...whatever...go tell someone who cares...

Beth :)


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Massless particles and photons.
    ... > Reality is a laser clearly proves photons have mass. ... > laser beam can blast a hole in solid steel. ... All of which shows it has energy - not mass. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Question about Vacuum Gravity
    ... funk420@yahoo.com (luke) wrote: ... > Mass and energy terms are together in the stress-energy tensor. ... > Hard to fit that in with the parent universe black hole however.. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Chewing out the neighbor kid
    ... A donut without a hole is a Danish. ... He was "schooling" my kids apparently. ... You might want to stop projecting your experiences onto others life ... I just slept through mass leaning my head over ...
    (rec.sport.football.college)
  • Re: Question about Vacuum Gravity
    ... > Dear luke: ... > The Einstein Field Equations have both mass and energy terms. ... if the universe were big ... Hard to fit that in with the parent universe black hole however.. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Chewing out the neighbor kid
    ... A donut without a hole is a Danish. ... He was "schooling" my kids apparently. ... You might want to stop projecting your experiences onto others life ... I just slept through mass leaning my head over ...
    (rec.sport.football.college)