Examples of Motion in “Rocheworld” – SCI 355: Science Through Science Fiction

The binary planet system, Rocheworld, provides unique opportunities to discuss gravity unconventionally.

Rocheworld employs numerous examples of motion to illustrate the complexity and nuance that non-conventional, extra-earth-based motion requires. It educates and explores how spacecraft, space stations and humans have to function and adapt to new and unusual situations when they are provided circumstances to which they are unaccustomed. Finally, the work toys with preconceptions and attempts to correct misconceptions about motion in Sci-Fi space. Rocheworld provides examples of motion which are more plausible and accurate by employing known science of motion—how objects move in outer space, vacuums and alien gravity—towards creating the applied science—spaceships, space stations and floating astronauts—within its narrative.

The Mercury “engine” station provides an excellent example from within the work of how motion, or in this case: a lack of motion, functions in a complex system of forces. The space station is suspended in a non-orbit behind the shadow of Mercury, held in-place by a ring sail (51). Red notices that something is amiss while the crew swims through the corridors of the station, it is quickly pointed out by the Administer of the station that “[they’re] NOT in free fall” (52). Free-fall, as the administer uses it, is the sensation provided by a lack of acceleration on massive objects. Weight is the outcome of an outside force being applied to any object with mass. Weight is expressed in pounds, which is simply a unit of force, it’s our own bodies mass and acceleration and therefore differs depending on our acceleration. If Force = Mass * Acceleration and the acceleration is zero—or as close to zero as possible—then our force is essentially zero: that is free-fall. Gravity, as a force, is the outcome of an accelerated massive object; massive objects provide acceleration towards one another. Within the station, the feeling of “weightlessness” is tangible since Mercury’s gravity is faint, “only one part in three thousand of Earth’s gravity” (53). However, unlike “free-fall,” their mass is being accelerated by Mercury’s gravity—albeit weakly—and will be slowly pulled towards the planet’s surface if they let go. The Administrator stresses that they are not in free-fall even though the crew may feel something akin to weightlessness. While the effects of gravity are less tangible on the Mercury station, they are present and potent, nonetheless.

Free-fall, as a sensation of massive objects without acceleration, is experienced by the crew of Prometheus in the middle of their journey when the propulsion lasers were turned off to prepare for the lasers to be focused through the transmitter lens. The lasers turn off one-by-one and “as the blinding searchlight glare faded away, the crew could feel a lightening under their corridor boots” (91). Once all the lasers stop propelling the sail-ship, the ship’s mass is no longer accelerating and so, neither is the crew. Well into deep space, gravity’s effects are near enough to zero and without the force provided from the lasers, the ship and crew are effectively without acceleration. They are still moving, Newton’s law still applies, objects in motion stay in motion unless acted upon by an outside force. They simply lack any outside force. They are drifting now, without acceleration, for the time being and therefore, experience free fall. The lasers are re-focused into the emitting lens and “they drift back onto the floor as the laser beam relit and the sail billowed again under the light pressure” (91). The crew feels the effects of acceleration again and no longer experience free-fall; the force of the light pressure against the ship’s sail is reintroduced and their mass is given acceleration again.

However, Rocheworld provides an example of free-fall that is not a lack of acceleration—and therefore, lack of force—but instead equilibrium of force that provides the sensation of free-fall as well. Between Roche and Eau, a sensation of free-fall is achieved through the force of two massive objects—Roche and Eau—affecting the smaller massive object placed between them. There is a sweet-spot so-to-speak where the effect of Roche’s gravity is equal to the opposite force of Eau’s gravity; the forces are equal and opposite and effectively cancel each other out. Therefore, an object in both objects’ field of gravity can inhabit a point where the equal and opposite forces provide the sensation of free-fall. The forces provide no net force towards either massive body and so the massive body in the middle is suspended, effectively without acceleration.

— If:  Mass of Roche = Mass of Eau
Then: Force of gravity is equal

Free-fall zone is the point where the Fgr = Fge

These examples of motion all serve a purpose of creating a sci-fi universe that injects scientific law into a genre that often bends or disregards them. With this regard for the laws of motion and physics, Rocheworld combines myriad methods of educating the reader about motion in outer space. The educational language attempts a realism that describes how space travel could tangibly look and feel in the near future, based off-of current scientific knowledge.

Examples of the novel’s educational slant are observed in moments like the administrator’s warning to the crew about Mercury’s gravity. The educational language hides in plain sight and allows a character to explain directly to the reader what is also explained to the other characters. This methodology is relatively seamless and unobtrusive, treating the characters like the laymen and not the reader. The novel does not beleaguer its clarifications and expositions and sometimes expresses them in even more subtle terms, like the free fall experienced when the lasers stop. Often writers are lauded for their ability to show and not tell; Forward both shows and tells but effectively masks many of his instances in which he tells through character interaction. His ability to show, and illustrate the scientific principles he wishes to explore, are numerous and inventive and do enough to demonstrate for the reader the law in action without pestering them.

Journal 4 “Madame Bovary” – ENG 494: Cultures of Indebtedness

Emma main be vain but Charles feeds, fosters, engages-in, and values the vanity just as much.

“But now he possessed, for life, this pretty wife whom he adored. For him the universe did not go beyond the silken confines of her petticoat” (29).

…

“He could not keep from constantly touching her comb, her rings, her shawl; sometimes he gave her big, full-lipped kisses on the cheek, or a string of little kisses all the way up her bare arm, from her fingertips to her shoulder” (29).

Charles is a man who comes from a meager background and simple means with aspirations to gain more. He is arranged into a marriage with Heloise by his parents with an obvious economic agenda. However, it is evident that this arrangement and marriage is not what he desires, after he spends a good majority of his free time tending to Emma’s father. He is enthralled with Emma.

I selected the above quotes because I think Charles is a man who values things similarly—but not identically—to Emma. There’s a lot to unpack within his motivations and desires; but this passage points to a treatment of Emma and a behavior towards her that is akin to the treatment of and behavior towards an object. This is not, as it may appear to be, as simple as Charles objectifies Emma. His objectification of Emma needs to be examined beyond the trappings of the usual, expected male-gaze critique—which is relevant and important—but how he views her is more nuanced than simple exploitation .

Superficially, he loves her, covets her; he cannot stomach being away from her. His universe, his perceived reality exists only within Emma’s petticoat.  This is, of course, flouncy and over-blown romantic language—but telling nonetheless.

Within the first sentence, Emma is referred to as “this pretty wife;” Charles alienates reference to her, by providing a demonstrative identity instead. Charles doesn’t possess her, he possesses this pretty wife. This linguistic choice is almost more dehumanizing than simply claiming that she is his because “she” at least refers to Emma and not an object in his immediate vicinity as a demonstrative does.

Sentence structure is important to look at within this statement. It begins, “but now” suggesting immediacy and then follows with possession. His possession of her is now and current; and therefore, it is the most immediate facet of how Charles views his relationship with Emma. She is something he has now. It also suggests that this moment provides a hinge and turning point, a reversal of his fortunes. Instead of his old wife—whom he did not adore—he now has this new wife. Then, follows, “for life;” the immediate possession of Emma—while most important within the structure of the sentence—is strengthened by a promised permanence. Finally, the referent object that is possessed—an unnamed and instead objectified Emma—is explained as being pretty and a wife and finally—and most tellingly—something that Charles adores. His adoration stands, seemingly removed, as an independent clause at the end of the sentence: an afterthought. These sentences appear to be proclamations of love and adoration from man to wife but point to an emphasis on everything but.

The language of the first sentence perverts the following sentence’s metaphysical statement (his wife being his universe) as something beyond romantic, honeymoon hyperbole into a problematic claim to ownership.  The language of ownership and possession are inseparable from language of objectification. He possesses Emma, as an object, her body, her person, and her assets— for life—contractually, through marriage. His universe is owned by him and it’s only a fraction of the object he owns.  His universe is in the silken confines of Emma’s petticoat; her skirt. Charles’ metaphysical domain is an erotic, bodily fetishized, female erogenous zone—one that belongs to a body he now owns.

Journal 2 – ENG 467: Race, Punishment and BioPolitics

“Modern racism is purposefully mystified so that it remains largely unchallenged.”

Prisoners are subject to a system of laws that are codified to be universal and indifferent. Crime and punishment exist within taxonomies that designate how punishment is prescribed in respect to the unlawful transgression. However, a duality within the modern system separates the legislative elements—the law—from the judicial prescribers of punishment. What this duality fosters is a system of peculiar particulars in regards to prescriptive punishment within a system that is assumed to be universal and codified. The judge consults a system of expertise and knowledge in order to judge the character and worth of the person accused of crimes and the criminal’s ability to rehabilitate back into society—as another assumed but no longer practiced end to punishment, is rehabilitation. The judge does not simply function as the authority giving out a sentence; instead, the judge functions as an authority of the person themselves and their worth to society as a whole. Punishment is then given based upon this judged worth. What this means is that while society is based upon a universal set of rights and laws, there are numerous mechanisms which undermine that universality and inject a set of particular judgments—an separation of the law and punishment (D&P 247).

Within this, Foucault alludes to how petty crimes are perceived in relation to grater crimes. Property theft is treated as evidence towards sickness of moral character, whereas—and ironically—greater crimes, like murder, are taken into a context of personality, mental illness and moments of passion and/or anger. Nuance is injected to better understand those who commit greater crimes, whereas those who commit small crimes are simply designated a label of criminal without the same privilege of nuance (D&P 247).

How crime is disassociated from punishment and how certain crimes suggest inherent criminality whilst other crimes do not, demystifies Foucault’s concept of Biopolitics that he develops in Society Must be Defended. My favorite summation of Foucault’s theories was made my Queer Studies professor, Jason Damron: “For every ‘yes,’ there is an unspoken ‘no;’ and for every silence, there is still something important being said.” This is how biopolitics operates. Every “yes” that modern society gives towards one group, accompanies a mute disavowal of action towards another group. Who is acted upon implicates a reality that there are those who are un-acted upon. Silence is just as powerful within modernity’s formation of biopolitical power. Who receives life-saving treatment and who does not, who is given forced sterilizations and who is not, who dies of AIDS and who remains healthy and HIV- is a direct product of government action—and simultaneously, inaction. Identically, who constitutes the majority of our prison populations and who does not, broadcasts an unspoken—but inherent—racism within society as a whole. A systemic opacity and murkiness of power within modernity allows these racist systems of prejudice to hide within all facets of society; they are permitted to perpetuate without question because they are insidious and systematic.

Racism, and its embeddness within the superstructure of society, is purposefully mystified so that it remains largely unchallenged. What was once overt is now veiled through layers of policy and bureaucracy and disseminated through myriad disciplines and agents of societal power. The power over life and death is exercised through the promotion or demotion of a groups worth or value—a population’s so-called “right” to longevity and health is subordinate to who that population is and their deemed worth to society by the biopolitical apparatus and discourse.

Directed Biography – SCI 355U: Science through Science Fiction

Science Rules?

I am a Junior with a double major in English and Philosophy major and a double minor in Gender and Queer Studies and Creative Writing. I transferred to PSU from Whittier college down in the greater Los Angeles area; I planned to build my own academic major program there, which would have combined English, Philosophy and Visual Arts. I only spent one term at Whittier; I had the epiphany that I could go to PSU for three years for the price I was paying for one year at Whittier. The cost was one among a great many other reasons why I left; including but not limited to, the fact that I missed my home town of Portland, the food was awful, and maybe—just maybe the fact that I was a vainglorious, self-important eighteen year-old who thought he was smarter and better prepared for college than everyone else. That last one, the whole self-important asshole thing, is certainly something I’ve worked to leave behind in LA, where it belongs. I’ve been attending PSU since Winter Term 2008 and I like to joke that I’m on the seven-year plan to graduate. I won’t go so far to say that I’ve been completely humbled but I’ve certainly gained a great deal more humility and understanding that my knowledge of a great many things is indefinitely flawed and lacking.

Given my academic focus, I have little-to-no science or mathematics background. However, my academic focus is shaped as much by my lack of experience within scientific fields. It’s a self-perpetuating-loop of sorts, a Gordian knot of humanities that I’m hoping this course will allow me to momentarily interrupt.

In high school, I re-took Algebra during my freshman year due to bad grades which I earned through lack of resolve to finish my homework in my eighth grade year—and I ended up no longer in advanced placement math and science courses because of it. Given that I was enrolled into Advanced classes in other fields, like English and History and Spanish, my—perhaps flawed—reasoning suggested that I focus on those classes in order to “play to my strengths” or something like that. And I did very well, except that I neglected the entirety of the pretty-important fields of math and science. I always understood math and science in high school. I excelled in the course work, when I was able to motivate my naïve, teenage self to get my homework done but by the time my classes had started to go beyond the canonical high school topics within physical science, biology, algebra and geometry, I had the steadfast notion in my head that math and science was boring. So, the big, newer, shiny exciting concepts; the ones that are beyond the foundational principles of math and science; the things that everyone smart and engaging talks about, are somewhat over my head. I lack the basic vocabulary to have a real discussion of higher-level math or science due to my high-school disregard for anything that involved numbers and formulas.

By-and-large, I regret this choice. I think I’ve always loved the written word and critical theory more than numbers and formulas. However, and especially within the last few years, delving deeper into Philosophy, I’ve come to a not-at-all profound epiphany: most major Philosophers were Mathematicians, Physicists, Chemists, and Biologists—often all of those things simultaneously—pretty much from the pre-Socratics all the way to the event horizon of the 20^th century. Eventually, the disciplines fractured and went their separate ways, leaving philosophy to study philosophers—which I think is largely a detriment to the discipline, overall. Physicists are engaging in what looks, feels (and smells) like philosophy everyday and make exciting gains in knowledge and how we perceive human reality within this world and universe. Within Physics, there’s a reverence for—and fascination with—the unknown, that borders on sublime. Point being: I like science and math and have regained a respect I somewhat abandoned too long ago. So, my passion for learning will hopefully trump my overwhelming ignorance of terms and methodologies.

I always, somewhat nervously, joke that with my English and Philosophy degree, I hope to sit in a study full of books and mahogany furniture whilst smoking from a pipe and drinking scotch in my tweed blazer. It’s certainly my “screw you” answer but it underlines an uncomfortable uncertainty of what I want to do once I “grow up.” Ideally, like all humanities majors, I’d like to reside in the Ivory Tower for the rest of my life, hence the aforementioned joke about tweed and books. I’m not unsavy the reality that given the state of higher education in today’s socio-political climate, the opportunities within the Ivory Tower are quickly disappearing.
If anything, and at the very least, I hope to be a really fun, engaging guest to invite to cocktail parties. I read a lot, and watch heaps of TV and Movies, so I always have something to talk about with people. And, don’t forget! I’m a critical thinker! So, I have lots to say about those books, movies and TV shows! I’ll even wear a bowtie, don’t think I won’t! Someone’s got to.

Even with my extensive cultural capital and affinity for bowties, I don’t read all that much Science Fiction. I watch a lot of Science Fiction on TV and in movies but as far as books go, I haven’t tapped that genre as much. I read a lot of distopyian narratives; the near-future, Orwellian-type books. 1984 is by-and-far one of my favorite novels, but calling it Science Fiction is a stretch—ok a big stretch. I like the allegorical narrative that dystopian novels provide and so I gravitate towards sci fi the serves largely allegorical purposes as well. I gravitate towards Ray Bradbury, Phillip K. Dick, Star Wars, Battlestar Galactica; in these bodies of work, science’s role is largely secondary to plot and devices in order to develop commentary on current society or delve into sociological issues—in the case of Star Wars, it’s purpose is to sell actions figures to 12 year-olds but I’m a sucker for Star Wars, what can I say?

Digressions aside, I like to read and I’m excited to read literature through a different lens. Extracting scientific concepts out of novels is a brave new world for me. As far as what I can add to class discussion, I’m never sure how to answer that. People value different insights within classrooms. I can’t lend much in regards to a discussion of scientific concepts but I listen well! But, I can talk endlessly about tropes and allegory and literary devices, theme, symbolism and I at least can generally extract things an novel or work uses as a device or convention to make a statement and when they’re trying to just represent reality as best they understand it. More on that, in the paper on gimmicks, right?