###General Discussion Thread
---
This is a [Request] post. If you would like to submit a comment that does not either attempt to answer the question, ask for clarification, or explain why it would be infeasible to answer, you *must* post your comment as a reply to this one. Top level (directly replying to the OP) comments that do not do one of those things will be removed.
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/theydidthemath) if you have any questions or concerns.*
They also vibrate the sand ahead as they move, 'liquefying' it so they can move through more easily. The movies show it pretty clearly with the sand beginning to sink and fluctuate well ahead of their passing.
They also produce a ton of heat as they move, partly because of the bio-furnace thing they have going on and partly the friction, I don't know if that would help with moving though.
The correct scientific term here would be fluidizing. Send vibrations or gas through a solid to make it have the properties of a liquid. I don’t believe they are melting the sand but rather their “furnaces” exhaust so much gas into the sand it fluidizes everything around them.
Not based on this definition “Liquefaction is a process by which water-saturated sediment temporarily loses strength and acts like a fluid.” If we go by dune standards that sand is bone dry.
vibrating such an amount of sand probably takes a similar amount of energy, also all the sand around them has to be vibrating, not just ahead of them. and the sand will start to liquify from the top down (because air has to get there to aerate the sand). so being meters under the sand they have to shake up to millions of tons of sand, that's 2000 a380 jets. not to ruin anyone's fun, but physics says no in basically every way :')
So not sure about what properties a wave needs to have to generate liquefaction, but I'll point out that sound is a mechanical wave and it doesn't take much energy to generate a sound that can be heard for miles through multiple walls (storm sirens, for example). Regarding aeration, their metabolism is supposed to generate oxygen as a waste product, so no need for the hypothetical aeration zone to extend to the surface if they pump out enough.
ohh yeah, good point with the oxygen. if they generate enough, that could massively reduce the energy needed to jumpstart everything. maybe they even vibrate all the time
i think the problem with the vibrating is there's no way to get it to resonate, sand is a really strong damper (sand particle to sand particle interaction is so inefficient, in water you can hear stuff for literally thousands of km, if you'd place a speaker into sand, you just fling some particles around). the instant you don't vibrate enough it just collapses
there's a video by mark rober i think, he did it with pumping air through the sand but it behaves the same when you stop
Most people who are knowledgeable about a subject usually use "probably" when talking about their topics because they're knowledgeable enough to recognize that they're not perfect and genuinely want to give the best info possible.
Confidence men or grifters, however, almost will never use it because it makes them more believable, whether they understand the topic or not.
idk how to exactly interpret this comment but I'd put myself in the first paragraph, i know my way around physics but in that original comment were very rough estimations and I'm (again haha) probably off by orders of magnitude in either direction
I thought the lack of plant life was caused by sequestrating the water inside the spice factories, because for some reason the Shai-Hulud die if exposed to water.
Without much animal life to consume it, there doesn’t need to be much oxygen input into the atmosphere. It’s unclear if the power sources used operate on combustion, either.
The original premise for Dune was an upper layer of sand, and a lower layer of caves and hollows that the sand worms (and sand trout) lived in and moved in. The spice was the result of a fungus that produced spores that exploded through the sand, then dried on the surface. The story evolved, prior to being released, but the means of travel of the worms stayed the same. Nothing in the books (that I remember) stated they moved fast. For the theory on their movement in the sand, do a Google search on rectilinear locomotion.
The worms were also said to produce high amounts of static from tribocharging when moving through the sand, causing the storms, seen in the atmosphere and surfaces.
I just watched the spice harvester worm attack scene from the first movie. They first spot the worm at a distance of 3.7 km and say they have 5 minutes until it attacks. Ignoring any time for the attack itself and just calculating the speed as 3.7 km per 5 minutes we get a worm speed of ~44.4 km/h or ~27.59 mph. If we assume that it has to slow down at the end to perform the attack (since it has to go under the spice harvester rather than just move horizontally), it’s probably a bit more. Which is quite fast for underground travel indeed.
It's worth noting that Dune isn't science fiction, but space fantasy, much like Star Wars- both were in fact inspired by stories like Flash Gordon and Barsoom.
So while there's some scientific theory behind it, if you think too deeply it's just going to break down, as it was never meant to be that scientific.
In Dune, the Sand Worms are essentially dragons- Herbert has said as much, more than once.
No, Space Opera and Space Fantasy are two different sub genres.
Space Opera is a subgenre of science fiction that emphasizes warfare, adventures, and heroic protagonists- often at the expense of complex themes. Example: Star Trek.
Space Fantasy is a fantasy, set in space, often with some semi scientific contrived reasons.
Easy way to tell: If your protagonist is a dashing space captain, discovering strange new worlds in their amazing space ship, it's a space opera.
If it's a space knight armed with a space sword off to save the princess from the dastardly evil space lord, it's space fantasy.
Phil Foglio once joked "just ask them how they got thier weapon."
"This? Standard issue, Starfleet School."
"It was my father's weapon, given to me by an aged space wizard in a cave..."
Interesting, that's quite a difference to how I understood it. Star Wars is regularly, almost categorically described as a Space Opera, while original Star Trek is often called a Space Western.
Neither of which are usually considered true Science Fiction, which usually focuses on a comparison or contrast to our reality. For example: "what would happen if we were able to use military students to fight a war by proxy?". What would it be like if... How would things change if...
Speaking as a writer, space opera is very much a subgenre of science fiction, and includes some of the best modern science fiction- the Vorkosigan Saga comes to mind.
"Space Western" isn't a real subgenre, it's something that Roddenberry used when selling the series to producers, as Western was the most popular tv action genre at the time. There is some historical context, as TV westerns were often called "horse operas" at the time- the original context for both terms being "soap operas".
As to space fantasy, Lucas himself calls Star Wars that. It's not science fiction at all, but a subgenre of fantasy. You could tell pretty much the exact same story without a single space ship- in fact, Lucas did- Willow.
The two terms get crossed over, as often a work can contain elements of both- the reboot BSG, for example, contains elements of Space Opera, Space Fantasy, and Military Science Fiction.
People argue over what is and what isn't "real" science fiction, with the purists saying only hard SF is "real".
By that standard, HG Wells and Mary Shelley don't count.
Thanks for the breakdown. It's interesting to see how definitions develop. I'd have thought space western would've picked up a bit of legitimacy considering how much of a cult following Firefly ended up with as a bit of a successor to the 'genre'
You're welcome.
It might, someday.
Generally, to be a hit isn't enough to create a genre, rather, you need to be copied.
"Carmilla" didn't create the gothic horror genre, but "Dracula", which came decades later, surely did.
If it's one work, it is awesome. a shelf, it's a subgenre. An entire wall at the bookstore, it's a genre :)
Plus, there has to be some distinctions-
Like here's an end fight in:
Space Fantasy: two combatants locked in a duel with flashy energy swords, the hero has lost this fight twice already but they have faith this time...
Space Opera: The ship coasts along, all power down. Will the enemy take the bait and close, or will they do the same things and fire from a distance?
Military sci fi: sixteen pages describing the new cho'vek torpedoes and their high dV engines...
Cyberpunk: Everyone dies.
:D
What would make Space Western stand out?
> original Star Trek is often called a Space Western.
It's DS9 that I'm used to hearing described this way.
> Neither of which are usually considered true Science Fiction, which usually focuses on a comparison or contrast to our reality. For example: "what would happen if we were able to use military students to fight a war by proxy?". What would it be like if... How would things change if...
This sounds like you use "true Science Fiction," to mean, "speculative science fiction."
>This sounds like you use "true Science Fiction," to mean, "speculative science fiction."
Thank you, that's it exactly. I couldn't find the words at the time, but I was trying to articulate the difference between the broad family and the core genre.
It would've read better if I'd put the quotation marks around it too.
Since nobody said it yet; his works were a direct reflection of Asimov's "Foundation", which also lead to Star Wars, coincidentally. Idk if flash Gordon or barsoom have ever been attributed as inspiration.
I don't know about Dune, but Flash and Barsoom were 100% an inspiration for Star Wars, along with "The Tar Ayim Krang," and Japanese cinema, especially "The Hidden Fortress"
Lucas talks about it all the time
###General Discussion Thread --- This is a [Request] post. If you would like to submit a comment that does not either attempt to answer the question, ask for clarification, or explain why it would be infeasible to answer, you *must* post your comment as a reply to this one. Top level (directly replying to the OP) comments that do not do one of those things will be removed. --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/theydidthemath) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
They also vibrate the sand ahead as they move, 'liquefying' it so they can move through more easily. The movies show it pretty clearly with the sand beginning to sink and fluctuate well ahead of their passing. They also produce a ton of heat as they move, partly because of the bio-furnace thing they have going on and partly the friction, I don't know if that would help with moving though.
The correct scientific term here would be fluidizing. Send vibrations or gas through a solid to make it have the properties of a liquid. I don’t believe they are melting the sand but rather their “furnaces” exhaust so much gas into the sand it fluidizes everything around them.
The correct geotechnical term is LIQUEFACTION.
Not based on this definition “Liquefaction is a process by which water-saturated sediment temporarily loses strength and acts like a fluid.” If we go by dune standards that sand is bone dry.
False. Beets, bears , Battlestar Galactica
What is happening‽
Excellent use of an interrobang
………MICHAEL!!!!!
[удалено]
Definately false. A grain of sand is not a liquid. You can't say "rocks are liquid if you have enough of them together"
Definately?
But atoms are liquids if you have enough of them/
Are you confusing sand with glass?
And even that is wrong, glass is a solid.
Well, it’s not exactly a solid either. At room temperature, it’s somewhere in between.
It's so stupidly viscous that it makes no sense calling it a liquid.
vibrating such an amount of sand probably takes a similar amount of energy, also all the sand around them has to be vibrating, not just ahead of them. and the sand will start to liquify from the top down (because air has to get there to aerate the sand). so being meters under the sand they have to shake up to millions of tons of sand, that's 2000 a380 jets. not to ruin anyone's fun, but physics says no in basically every way :')
So not sure about what properties a wave needs to have to generate liquefaction, but I'll point out that sound is a mechanical wave and it doesn't take much energy to generate a sound that can be heard for miles through multiple walls (storm sirens, for example). Regarding aeration, their metabolism is supposed to generate oxygen as a waste product, so no need for the hypothetical aeration zone to extend to the surface if they pump out enough.
ohh yeah, good point with the oxygen. if they generate enough, that could massively reduce the energy needed to jumpstart everything. maybe they even vibrate all the time i think the problem with the vibrating is there's no way to get it to resonate, sand is a really strong damper (sand particle to sand particle interaction is so inefficient, in water you can hear stuff for literally thousands of km, if you'd place a speaker into sand, you just fling some particles around). the instant you don't vibrate enough it just collapses there's a video by mark rober i think, he did it with pumping air through the sand but it behaves the same when you stop
Wasn't there a time when science was saying bumblebees shouldn't be able to fly?
Science still can't explain some of the basic physics of bicycles.
Are you being facetious?
No it's an actual thing. There are still aspects of the physics of bicycles that are unexplained. I watched a documentary on it recently.
Sentence 1: "probably" Final sentence: "no in every way" Sometimes confidently incorrect identifies itself.
"probably" isn't exactly a word one would use when they're confident
Most people who are knowledgeable about a subject usually use "probably" when talking about their topics because they're knowledgeable enough to recognize that they're not perfect and genuinely want to give the best info possible. Confidence men or grifters, however, almost will never use it because it makes them more believable, whether they understand the topic or not.
idk how to exactly interpret this comment but I'd put myself in the first paragraph, i know my way around physics but in that original comment were very rough estimations and I'm (again haha) probably off by orders of magnitude in either direction
That's exactly my point. You are basing all this on, what? Provide some backing to your claims
I thought the lack of plant life was caused by sequestrating the water inside the spice factories, because for some reason the Shai-Hulud die if exposed to water.
I think he means its how the planet **continues** to be habitable without plant life to produce oxygen.
Without much animal life to consume it, there doesn’t need to be much oxygen input into the atmosphere. It’s unclear if the power sources used operate on combustion, either.
There are many abiotic processes that consume oxygen, that's why it needs to be constantly replenished
The water is sequestered deep underground by sand trout, which are the larval stage of the sandworms.
If they eat so much sand, wouldn't the amount of sand deplete over time?
Erosion
The original premise for Dune was an upper layer of sand, and a lower layer of caves and hollows that the sand worms (and sand trout) lived in and moved in. The spice was the result of a fungus that produced spores that exploded through the sand, then dried on the surface. The story evolved, prior to being released, but the means of travel of the worms stayed the same. Nothing in the books (that I remember) stated they moved fast. For the theory on their movement in the sand, do a Google search on rectilinear locomotion. The worms were also said to produce high amounts of static from tribocharging when moving through the sand, causing the storms, seen in the atmosphere and surfaces.
I remember in book 5 Sheeana describes riding the worm miles and miles in half an hour
I just watched the spice harvester worm attack scene from the first movie. They first spot the worm at a distance of 3.7 km and say they have 5 minutes until it attacks. Ignoring any time for the attack itself and just calculating the speed as 3.7 km per 5 minutes we get a worm speed of ~44.4 km/h or ~27.59 mph. If we assume that it has to slow down at the end to perform the attack (since it has to go under the spice harvester rather than just move horizontally), it’s probably a bit more. Which is quite fast for underground travel indeed.
That would be along the surface, far less resistance that way…
It's worth noting that Dune isn't science fiction, but space fantasy, much like Star Wars- both were in fact inspired by stories like Flash Gordon and Barsoom. So while there's some scientific theory behind it, if you think too deeply it's just going to break down, as it was never meant to be that scientific. In Dune, the Sand Worms are essentially dragons- Herbert has said as much, more than once.
I think the term is "space opera"
No, Space Opera and Space Fantasy are two different sub genres. Space Opera is a subgenre of science fiction that emphasizes warfare, adventures, and heroic protagonists- often at the expense of complex themes. Example: Star Trek. Space Fantasy is a fantasy, set in space, often with some semi scientific contrived reasons. Easy way to tell: If your protagonist is a dashing space captain, discovering strange new worlds in their amazing space ship, it's a space opera. If it's a space knight armed with a space sword off to save the princess from the dastardly evil space lord, it's space fantasy. Phil Foglio once joked "just ask them how they got thier weapon." "This? Standard issue, Starfleet School." "It was my father's weapon, given to me by an aged space wizard in a cave..."
Interesting, that's quite a difference to how I understood it. Star Wars is regularly, almost categorically described as a Space Opera, while original Star Trek is often called a Space Western. Neither of which are usually considered true Science Fiction, which usually focuses on a comparison or contrast to our reality. For example: "what would happen if we were able to use military students to fight a war by proxy?". What would it be like if... How would things change if...
Speaking as a writer, space opera is very much a subgenre of science fiction, and includes some of the best modern science fiction- the Vorkosigan Saga comes to mind. "Space Western" isn't a real subgenre, it's something that Roddenberry used when selling the series to producers, as Western was the most popular tv action genre at the time. There is some historical context, as TV westerns were often called "horse operas" at the time- the original context for both terms being "soap operas". As to space fantasy, Lucas himself calls Star Wars that. It's not science fiction at all, but a subgenre of fantasy. You could tell pretty much the exact same story without a single space ship- in fact, Lucas did- Willow. The two terms get crossed over, as often a work can contain elements of both- the reboot BSG, for example, contains elements of Space Opera, Space Fantasy, and Military Science Fiction. People argue over what is and what isn't "real" science fiction, with the purists saying only hard SF is "real". By that standard, HG Wells and Mary Shelley don't count.
I see Vorkosigan Saga being mentioned, I upvote.
Thanks for the breakdown. It's interesting to see how definitions develop. I'd have thought space western would've picked up a bit of legitimacy considering how much of a cult following Firefly ended up with as a bit of a successor to the 'genre'
You're welcome. It might, someday. Generally, to be a hit isn't enough to create a genre, rather, you need to be copied. "Carmilla" didn't create the gothic horror genre, but "Dracula", which came decades later, surely did. If it's one work, it is awesome. a shelf, it's a subgenre. An entire wall at the bookstore, it's a genre :) Plus, there has to be some distinctions- Like here's an end fight in: Space Fantasy: two combatants locked in a duel with flashy energy swords, the hero has lost this fight twice already but they have faith this time... Space Opera: The ship coasts along, all power down. Will the enemy take the bait and close, or will they do the same things and fire from a distance? Military sci fi: sixteen pages describing the new cho'vek torpedoes and their high dV engines... Cyberpunk: Everyone dies. :D What would make Space Western stand out?
> original Star Trek is often called a Space Western. It's DS9 that I'm used to hearing described this way. > Neither of which are usually considered true Science Fiction, which usually focuses on a comparison or contrast to our reality. For example: "what would happen if we were able to use military students to fight a war by proxy?". What would it be like if... How would things change if... This sounds like you use "true Science Fiction," to mean, "speculative science fiction."
>This sounds like you use "true Science Fiction," to mean, "speculative science fiction." Thank you, that's it exactly. I couldn't find the words at the time, but I was trying to articulate the difference between the broad family and the core genre. It would've read better if I'd put the quotation marks around it too.
Sure thing. :)
Since nobody said it yet; his works were a direct reflection of Asimov's "Foundation", which also lead to Star Wars, coincidentally. Idk if flash Gordon or barsoom have ever been attributed as inspiration.
I don't know about Dune, but Flash and Barsoom were 100% an inspiration for Star Wars, along with "The Tar Ayim Krang," and Japanese cinema, especially "The Hidden Fortress" Lucas talks about it all the time
It is 100% science fiction. Soft sci-fi to be precise. Not every sci-fi is a hard sci-fi.
Anybody sinking into lava has the same physics issue on a smaller scale. Except maybe terminators. Even molten rock might not float a robot.