Comments on: Talkin’ Science and Science Fiction With Eureka’s Jaime Paglia

By: Salih Kırcalar

Salih Kırcalar — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 10:43:53 +0000

Dear Sir,

Very small free roaming particles lifetime very short.[free photons, free notron, free proton,free
electron ,vs].And their lifetime is its energy Mc2. Protons are observed to be stable and their theoretical minimum half-life is 1×10′36 years.Grand unified theories generally predict. That proton
decay should take place, although experiments so far have only resulted in a lower limit 10′35 years for proton’s lifetime. I see that. The earth lifetime is its Mc’2 energy. When this is calculated
the lifetime of earth.

Earth Mass= 5.97×10′24 kg. the lifetime 1 kg of mass in space is 2851927903,26 years.

Earth Lifetime is 1.7×10′34 years. I think that, this is a very interesting result.

Best regarts
Salih Kırcalar

By: Salih Kırcalar

Salih Kırcalar — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 10:42:25 +0000

Dear Sir,

In your opinion, discovery of a planet is more exciting. Or, as I’ve presented in the attached article,
whether observing ‘A very tiniest mass in the space, having completed its life, have been turning
into energy’ would be more exciting or not ? It is my belief that, this observation will be the proof
of the General and the Special Theory of Relativity. This observation can be made only by NASA or
ESA. I hope that I will be able to see this consequence while I’m still alive. For further information,
please visit my web site http://www.timeflow.org . I will be indebted for your interest.

Sincerely

Salih KIRCALAR

By: joanna

joanna — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 16:35:58 +0000

there is an onlist of film locations, several of which were on Vancouver Island, various towns, including Victoria, Duncan, and Nanaimo. We used to live on Van. Island and I must say that some of the scenery does look like it.

By: greg wilson

greg wilson — Sun, 16 Aug 2009 22:45:09 +0000

It would be nice to see a book like “The Physics of Star Trek” all about Eureka. I agree with all the posts I’ve read here: great show, sometimes a bit weak on the science, but always reaching, which is what I’m guessing Paglia is going for.
My son, who’s also studying physics (I’m a physics instructor), turned me on to this and I love it.

By: Ned Ludd

Ned Ludd — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 04:11:23 +0000

Eric, thanks for clearing that up. From looking at IMDb, season 1 exteriors were mostly shot in Chilliwack, BC, a town of 80,000 people located about 60 miles east of Vancouver. From the pictures at Panoramio.com, it looks like a beautiful area. I’d guess many of season 2’s outdoor shots were also filmed in & around Chilliwack, and then they moved to Vancouver for season 3. I didn’t see individual episodes’ locations listed at IMDb after season 1, so just a hunch on my part.

By: Eric Wolff

Eric Wolff — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 22:28:48 +0000

Hey Ned – Just heard back from the friendly folks at Eureka. The show is shot entirely in Vancouver.

By: Eric Wolff

Eric Wolff — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 18:20:08 +0000

Walt, I hear you on the way they bend science, but I appreciate the way they actually try to bring in new ideas and concepts. There’s more science on Eureka then on, say, The Real Housewives of New Jersey.

Ned, that’s an interesting point. I looked up the locations on IMDB, and they’re all BC. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0796264/locations But I sent an email to a SyFy PR person, I’ll post back here when she gets back to me.

By: Ned Ludd

Ned Ludd — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 09:03:04 +0000

Has Eureka moved filming from BC to LA? Instead of the foggy mountain lakes, lush ferns, and towering evergreens of Season 1 & 2; Season 3 looks like it’s filmed in a drier place with sprawling farms often the backdrop of outdoor shots instead of mountain forests with moss-covered trees and tree trunks sometimes too large to wrap your arms around. Also, the last shot of “Welcome Back, Carter” in Season 3 pans up and barely shows the horizon, and what it shows look to me like distant skyscrapers or office buildings instead of the mountain horizon from before.

Of course, there are still generic fill-in shots that look like they are from the early seasons – for example, “Welcome Back, Carter” leads in with a generic shot of the town with mountains in the background. But, in the Season 3 episodes I’ve watched, newly shot outdoor scenes look different than the ones from Season 1 & 2.

By: Mike

Mike — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 23:44:49 +0000

That “It’s not easy being green” episode was definitely the weakest of the season.

By: walt

walt — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 16:26:15 +0000

It’s a great show but it ain’t science.
Take the last show. Fargo got a little dab on his palm and was infected with gamma rays which spread throughout his skin mutating the cells so they turned green? And a monster that ate radiation and chased people because we glow a little? More dramatic than a blob that chased radon in the basement, I guess…
The average Eureka episode is about as scientific as a Warner Brothers cartoon but I still love it.

By: Sharon E. Dreyer

Sharon E. Dreyer — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 14:56:36 +0000

Eureka is one the best series on the SciFi – OOOPS SyFi channel. From the first pilot to now. Hope it doesn’t lose momentum like some series. Great article. Thanks for sharing the information.

Check out my first and recently released novel, Long Journey to Rneadal. This exciting story is a romantic action adventure in space.