Science and Science Fictional Thoughts

Recently, I’ve been thinking about star and star system formation a lot.

The basics, I understand it, runs something like this.

1) A large cloud of gas, the remnants from previous stellar explosions, begins collapsing under its gravitational attraction.

2) Angular momentum spins faster compressing it into an accretion disk. In the disk denser clumps begin gathering and forming the seeds of planets.

3) Most of the cloud is pulled to the center forming a massive body whose center becomes more and more compressed raising the temperature.

4) When the temperature and pressure get high enough the star ignites and blows out the last vestiges of the cloud. Leaving a star and forming planets.

I have questions.

As the cloud compresses into a star but before fusion starts hoe dense does that gas get? Do we get atmospheres of pressure reaching from the core out to the orbital distances of the future planets? Would it be dense enough for aerodynamic forces? Do we potentially have dense enough gas that there is effectively an atmosphere between the soon to be star and it’s forming planets? Could electric charges build up in this massive cloud producing planet-sized or large lightning bolts?

When the fusion starts how fast is that process? Is it thousands or millions of years between ignition and having a star or is much shorter and explosive? What sort of pressure is generating in the remaining cloud as a blast wave that sweeps through the emerging star system?

Welcome to the late-night thoughts of a science fiction writer.

Share

Quick Thoughts on the Leaker SCOTUS Draft

First off let me be plain, I am pro Choice on the issue of abortion. There are lots of arguments why but one I see too little of that to me is hugely determinative is that giving birth is life-threatening, particularly in the American health care system, especially so for people of color and poor economic resources. The decision to rick one’s life should only rest with the person whose life is being risked.

Alito’s leaked draft opinion is some 98 pages long and my summation of his argument will be both reductive and from a non-lawyer’s perspective. From what I can determine listening to sources both left and right his basic argument flows like this.

Abortion is not specifically named as a right in the constitution.

The constitution does protect right which are not specifically named. (The 9th Amendment.)

To determine if something is an unnamed right one looks to history and tradition as it was understood at the time of the 9th amendment and the 14th. (part of the legal dismantling of slavery following the civil war.)

In Alito’s view abortion was not part of the history and tradition of accepted rights in either the 18th or 19th centuries, therefor it could not be counted among the unnamed rights of the 9th amendment nor among the privileges and immunities of the 14th.

Given that Alito concludes that there is no right to abortion and at the time of the leak has persuaded four other conservative justices to agree to this reasoning, terminating, for the first time ever in American history, and individual right.

To me there are several philosophical troubles with this reasoning.

First it presumes that the unnamed rights of the constitution are a close set, limited in number, and restricted to only what could have been conceived of at the time by while male slavers. Rather than interpreting the galaxy of unnamed right to be an evolving set matching culture as it changed it is a static set but one without any definition to guide future person in that determination.

It relies upon reading minds, from a distance of more than two hundred years, of men who recognized no rights for women in self-determination to adjudicate the rights of people in the 21st century.

It presumes that the men who wrote and adopted the constitution were so limited in their minds and imagination that they were incapable of conceiving of rights not yet considered by history and tradition.

There is a school of thought, generally conservative, that rights are not granted by governments but rather recognized by them and that their true source is a divine power. But if you accept this theory on the source of rights then Alito’s opinion is even more insane. Alito is then saying though God, all knowing throughout all time, imbues people with rights he was incapable of granting rights fallen humans were unable to think of in 1789 or 1868.

In my opinion Alito conclusions, and the agreement of his fellow justices, is nothing more than highly motivated reasoning. This is something I have seen in my past time, tabletop gaming. A player has a predetermined conclusion that would benefit their game and suddenly the interpreting of rules becomes quite fluid and twisted logic is employed to arrive at the desired outcome. The conservatives want to overturn Roe and the method of getting there matters very little. As it has been said on one legal podcast the vibe is very much ‘Stare decisis is for suckers.’

Share

Movie Review: Firestarter (2022)

Previously adapted in 1984 from Steven King’s novel of the same title Firestarter is another go at bring the story to the screen and like the 1984 adaptation this one also ultimately fails.

In 1984 the lead role of Charlie, a young girl with pyrokinetic powers, was performed by 8-year-old Drew Barrymore, and, while she has become an accomplished actor and producers, at 7 she was not ready to carry a film, few that young are, and that, along with middling production values and lackluster cinematography produced a lifeless dull film.

The 2022 interpretation is led by 11-year-old Ryan Kiera Armstrong and the three additional

Credit: Blumhouse Picture

years are a multiplier for her to shoulder the burden of lead character in a major motion picture, yielding a more credible performance and with greater emotional depth.  2022’s Firestarter also sports more talented filmmaking, less exaggerated physical acting, and a subtle light touch to the photography that raises the film’s quality considerably.

Sadly, the script in the final act crashes and burns, jettisoning the story line of emotional manipulation and abuse for a fire spectacle for a finale with a final resolution that breaks all disbelief and insults the character’s trauma and breaks entirely with the source material.

At a quick hour and a half the filmmakers still managed to wedge in pointless scenes that had they been edited out no one would have noticed. What should have been a slow burn, pun intended, of tension drags in flat chemistry-less scenes. The story’s antagonists, are both all-knowing in their surveillance, spotting a random heat spike on a FLIR camera when supposed they had no concept of Charlie’s locations, and monumental ignorant of how to proceed.

The film is not worth your time, and I would suggest if you have a burning, again intentional, curiosity to see it, wait for cable or streaming.

Share

How a Conservative Columnist Displayed Both His Ignorance and His Bias

Elements of the geeky internet awoke yesterday when the ironically name conservative writer David Marcus (Also the name of the fictional son of Trek’s James T. Kirk) accused the new slate of shows of going where it has never gone before ‘woke’ politics.

Now many have already leapt into the conversation with numerous examples od how Star Trek from its very inception had always displayed a more liberal political viewpoint. However, I think that there is more interesting facet to examine in Marcus’ factually wrong essay that displays his own quite strong inherent bias.

First let’s look at a blatant factual inaccuracy. Marcus writes.

 Since its creation in 1966 the franchise has had myriad iterations on big screen and small, basically invented the sci-fi convention, and has charmed audiences across every generation.”

This might be true of Media conventions but there were 29 World Science Fiction Conventions dispensing coveted award before the first large Star Trek convention. (Setting aside a smaller gather in a library conference room.) It is clear that the author has very little practical knowledge of fandom or its history.

Next Marcus takes issues with the casting of politician Stacey Abrams as the President of the United Federation of Planets in the streaming series Picard. Stunt casting is a long and stories tradition in Hollywood, when Babylon 5 moved to TNT there was pressure to cast some the networks wrestling stars in the series for cross promotion and Star Trek in its original 60’s incarnation cast famed celebrity lawyer Melvin Belli as a corrupting alien ghost. Star Trek: The Next Generation saw the casting of real-life astronaut Mae Jemison. This sort of stunt casting is hardly new and not at all new to Trek.

But apparently what set this essay in motion for Marcus, and that’s my opinion from reading the piece, is the brief video from the 2021 insurrection and riot at the US Capitol.

Again, from Marcus’ piece.

The second was a weird plot twist in the pilot of new show, Strange New Worlds in which the 2020 capitol riot is depicted and blamed for starting a Second American Civil War and the destruction of the planet. To put it more succinctly, Orange man bad.

It is illuminating that Marcus see it in this light when in the actual text of the show the character narrating the events is hopes of preventing an alien culture from engaging in a global extinction

CBS Ventures (Screen Cap)

level war describe the start as a ‘fight for freedoms,’ makes no mention who started what, or assigns any blame. Only that the fight grew and grew and grew until it nearly destroyed humanity. And there’s not even a the barest of refences to any currently politician.

The video footage from the insurrection lasts a total of six seconds. From this bit of lifted archival footage Marcus constructs an alternate reality worthy of the Daniels’ multiverse where humanity has hotdogs for fingers. He sees the shows creative team putting all the blame for Trek’sWorld War 3 cannon firmly on the conservative shoulders when the text makes nothing like that argument.

Why does he jump so readily to that conclusion?

To me the answer is plain but is to be fair conjecture. It is because he knows that the violence and death are the product of the modern conservative culture. He desperately wishes it were not so, he desperately, like all of us, wants to be the hero and not the villain. Facts are stubborn things, and the facts are clear it was conservatives that stormed the capitol with murderous intent unwilling to accept the legal, fair, and democratic process that had defeated them. It is far more soothing to the ego to point fingers, accuse others of propaganda, and play the victim than to look into the mirror recognize that you are the evil man.

Marcus’ histrionic response to six seconds of archival footage reveals that he is aware that his faction are the villains, and his response is deep and deadly denial.

Share

Birthday Beg

Saturday is my birthday, and I will be spending it with friends playing the tabletop RPG Space Opera.

While others are quite charitable on Facebook using their birthdays to raise funds for causes this year, I am going to be self-centered and greedy and tell you what I want more than anything for my birthday.

Reviews

My novel, Vulcan’s Forge, has gathered a mere 11 reviews over two years and I desperately need more to appease the god algorithm.

If you have read the book, which can kind of be described as WandaVision meets Raised by Wolves (Humans raised by A.I.s obsessed with mid-twentieth century Americana) w a heavy dash of film noir, then please go to Amazon and leave a review. Even if you hated it, be honest, I am not asking nor wanting anyone to leave false flattering reviews, just reviews.

Share

Movie Review: Everything Everywhere All at Once

\

Sunday evening, after seeing the latest MCU film that morning, I went and watched Everything Everywhere All at Once (EEAO) from A24 Studios and ‘The Daniels,’ (Dan Kwan & Daniel Scheinert) another multiverse hopping storyline with a villain threatening all of existence.

Michelle Yeoh plays Evelyn a woman estranged from her very western daughter Joy (Stephanie Hsu), her very Chinese Father Gong Gong (James Hong), and who ignores her geeky and meek husband Waymond (Ke Huy Quan.) With both their laundromat business and marriage failing

A24 Studios

Evelyn and her husband, accompanied by Gong Gong who due to infirmity cannot be left home, are summoned to the local IRS office to confront a cold and unsympathetic auditor Deirdre (Jamie Lee Curtis) but everything is derailed when Waymond from an alternate timeline confronts Evelyn and insists she is the key to saving the universe from Jobu Tupaki, a pan-universal creature bent on chaos and destruction.

EEAO gives its actors a real meal of characters to portray, meek, bold, strong, weak, heroic and depressed most of the cast gets a shot at playing wide and diverse versions of their characters. Despite the on-screen insanity, fun, and sheer inventiveness at its heart the film grapples with extensional dread and the nihilistic fear that nothing at all truly matters. Love, Joy, Happiness, and even life itself is fleeting eventually becoming nothing but dust. The script doesn’t shy away from this truth but also finds ways to recognize that those fleet moments are the value and that because there is no permanence doesn’t mean that there is no meaning.

The film’s characters speak in combination of English and Chinese with liberal use of subtitling for those like me who are stuck as a monolingual talent. While dealing with heavy themes such as the meaning of life and the push and pull of generations and culture EEAO also dips into crude humor and exhilarating action presenting a mixture of tones and styles as diverse as life itself.

I thoroughly enjoyed Everything Everywhere All at Once and I am already looking forward to some future repeat viewing.

Share

Movie Review (Spoiler Free): Doctor Strange in The Multiverse of Madness

Six years, and after several appearances in other franchise properties, Doctor Strange has its the sequel in Doctor Strange in The Multiverse of Madness (MOM).

Stephen Strange (Benedict Cumberbatch), master of the mystic arts, grappling with lost years dues to snapture (Hat tip to NPR’s Glenn Weldon for that) and lost loves as Christine Palmer (Rachel McAdams) marries another is drawn into a multi-universal threat rescuing a teenage, America Chavez (Xochitl Gomez), witchcraft summoned demons intent of capturing the young

Disney Pictures

woman for their master’s plan. Recognizing that this is witchcraft and not sorcery Strange seeks out Wanda Maximoff (Elizabeth Olsen) for assistance kicking off a chase across parallel universes, cameos from Marvel characters yet established in the MCU’s cannon and director’s Raimi’s long-time collaborator Bruce Campbell, with homages to their cult classic The Evil Dead, climaxing in CGI saturated battles but with a resolution that ultimately turns on seeing oneself as you truly are rather than how you think you are.

MOM is not the worst MVU films to play the silver screen, but neither is it the best. While heavy handed with some exposition it doesn’t fully its narrative momentum in the second act as did Eternals nor is it as light in character drama as The Incredible Hulk, but Strange’s emotional arc is flat, nearly absent, and with minor script changes that could have been corrected without signification plot deviations. Newcomer Xochitl Gomez does an impressive job holding her own in the presence of such acting talents as Cumberbatch, Olsen, and the film’s other Benedict, Wong, selling her character’s emotional truth without big expansive expressive displays

That said the film’s MVP actor is Elizabeth Olsen. In addition to playing variants of her character she excelled as the displaying depths for these individuals, giving a natural realism that penetrated the plots incredible nature and the CGI’s attempts to steal attention with spectacle. While Strange’s name is in the title the film is really her and I do wonder what viewers who have not seen WanaVision, whose theme composer Danny Elfman slipped into the score, made of Wanda’s principal motivation?

I did find the visual effects not quite on target, but I do not think it was primarily a failure of good rendering or models but rather the final composting left a disquieting disconnect to the varies elements harming the verisimilitude.

Overall, I would rank this MCU entry in the 3rd quarter with about half of the franchise better than and about a quarter not as good.

Doctor Strange in The Multiverse of Madness is currently playing theatrically.

Share

Streaming Review: Star Trek: Strange New Worlds

Be aware that I am an old fart and the first thing that comes to mind when someone says ‘Star Trek’ to me is the original series and the original actors, much of the newer batches, particularly the newest, have little call for me.

That said I was excited by the news of Star Trek: Strange New World which proposes to go back to when the Enterprise was commanded by Captain Christopher Pike as seen in Trek’s original pilot The Cage.

In the pilot when we meet Pike (Anson Mount) he is deeply troubled by some haunting past event which he doesn’t share even with his S.O. (Significant Other not Supply Officer) An event

Credit: Paramount Pictures

that has him grounded and doubting himself. However, when his first officer, Number One (Rebecca Romijn) goes missing on a first contact mission Pike resumes command of the Enterprise and launches a mission to save her. During the rescue and first contact mission Pike must come to grips with his trauma and rediscovers, partially through Lt. Noonien-Sign (Christina Chong) a survivor of a horrific event, what it means to live fully under a terrible cloud. An understanding reinforced by his friendship with his science office Spock (Ethan Peck)

Strange New Worlds tips its hat and pay homage to the original series in a number of ways but also breaks canon continuity so your milage may vary on how well it integrates with the franchise as a whole. Secondary characters from the original series appear as crew members, Doctor M’Benga (Babs Olusanmokun) appeared in only a couple of episodes in the original show is now the ship’s primary medical officer, assisted by Nurse Christine Chapel (Jess Bush). Additional original series characters include Cadet Uhura (Celia Rose Gooding) and Chief Kyle (Andre Dae Kim) though he looks far too young to be a Chief.

Production design and set decor also took inspiration from the original series while not sacrificing a modern appearance. Graphics that appear on the bridge monitors are directly referencing original low-tech graphics of the original show and control even have some of the domed color button that always looked so candy-like to me.

However, the show is not without its flaws. The distances between star systems is preposterously brief, particularly in respect to the original series. Also Lt. Noonien-Singh’s background is clear break with continuity as James Kirk famously made first contact with the Gorns. There is a tendency to use advanced technology as magic and I doubt that will fade away in subsequent episodes.

But, overall, I enjoyed the pilot and will return next week for more.

Star Trek: Strange New Worlds streams Thursdays on Paramount+.

Share

My Upcoming Geeky Artistic Weekend

Which artistically is starting tonight, Thursday.

Tonight, I plan to go out and see the foreign language Finnish horror film Hatching before it vanishes from theaters in my area. (I must admit I adore my AMC A-List subscription that makes rolling the dice on movie so much easier.)

Also tonight is Star Trek: Strange New Worlds. My sweetie-wife and I will be giving the series a try. Now, I’ll confess that lately the trek shows have not been working for me but hope springs eternal.

Saturday evening I plan to venture to San Diego’s Balboa Park for more experiments in night photography. Last weekend when I left the secret morgue I spied the California Tower lit by colored lights and thought it would be a good subject for my meager photographic skills.

Sunday morning my sweetie-wife and I will go out and catch the new Doctor Stranger movie.

All in all I am looking forward to this weekend.

Share

Why David French is Likely Wrong

David French, social conservative and never Trumper, has said for quite a while and reiterated his stance in the wake of the leak from SCOTUS, that overturning the precedent of Roe v Wade and its associated constitutional rights is far less consequential than most people assume. His argument is built upon three core legs and in each of these I think it is likely events will prove him wrong.

The three premises of his arguments are as thus:

  1. Few voters actually value the abortion issues highly
  2. The nation is already divided by the states into stable abortion zones.
  3. With the issues delegitimized as a right and returned to politics the compromise nature of politics will cool the waters and finalize into an agreed upon solution.

To support his premises that few voters actually care about the issues French often cites recent election data and he is particularly fond of Youngkin’s victory this year in Virginia. Exit polls do indeed show that few voters listed abortion as a driving factor in their decisions. However, this follows on decades of the issues being ‘settled law’ and if you are under 50 your entire life had been one in which this was a right. It is true that the storm has been gathering for some time and with the 3 justices appointed to SCOTUS by the previous administration this outcome was highly predicable. But I would contend that there is a vast emotional gulf between what is predicted and an event happening. A live example of this is the Russian invasion of Ukraine. For months we have been warned that Russian was likely to invade it democratic neighbor. For weeks the US warned that the invasion was coming soon, not likely, not possible, but actually coming. The American electorate cared very little. Ukraine was not pressing political issue. And now it is. That seems very odd, we have quite clear polling that people really didn’t consider Ukraine very important, so they shouldn’t now when the easily predictable thing came to pass. But they do. Because it a very different thing to speak of possibilities and another to have reality come crashing into the consciousness. Being told smoking causes cancer and being told you have cancer are emotionally quite different in their impact and I think the same mechanism will be at work here. For decades people have been warned their rights are in danger and now those rights are gone. It is quite likely there will be a political firestorm.

Yes, the nation is already divided into states with abortion freedoms and those without. Far more abortions, even controlling for population, in California than Mississippi, but there is no reason to believe that will hold after the destruction of the right. Already liberal at the national level are scrambling in search of a way, probably in vain, to pass national legislation on this issue. I have no doubts that future government with the GOP in control will also attempt to pass laws criminalizing abortion nationally. After all, if you sincerely believe that this ‘murders children,’ a premise I do not accept, then how can you do nothing to stop it once you have cleared the barricade that has barred you from doing so? No, once Roe is dealt with the next objective will be a national legal movement. I am sure French would argue that it is against conservative principle to overrule the states with a national law. I will point out that there is no ‘conservative principle’ that held the GOP back from embracing and literally idolizing Trump. No ‘principle’ will stay their hand here.

And now we come to the most delusional and wish-casting section of his argument, that political compromise will be found.

We have a repeat of the trouble from the second premise, if someone believes that abortion is murder what possible compromise can that person make? How could they say, you may ‘murder these babies but not these?’ It’s preposterous but set that aside for the moment, either because it is untrue, the political movers and shakers do not hold this belief dear to their hearts or because it is impractical the third legs still collapses. Because of physical sorting and gerrymandering fewer and fewer political areas are competitive between the two camps, California is not going to compromises and give ground to the powerless GOP within the state and Mississippi will behave the same toward the Democrats there. As with every other issue before us there is absolutely no incentive for any political party to compromise. It only opens you up to attack from your more dedicated factions and wins you nothing in the contest. The battle has now crossed no man’s land and the two factions are going to be in hand-to-hand knifing fighting.

Of course, this will not stop with abortion. Yes, the leaked said that this reasoning doesn’t apply to anything else at all, but this is from the same liars who proclaimed Roe as ‘settled law.’ Sadly, the war only grows.

Share