TL;DR:

heating the pan before the oil has no useful effects in most cases.

While this is a duplicate of another question , I'm going to answer it again because that question's accepted answer provides zero evidence or citations to back itself up.

Which is important, because the accepted answer is wrong.

The popular myth is " Cold oil in hot pan and food won't stick ".

Like most such cooking myths, this one is nonsense; as Kitchen Myths points out : What you really want is “hot pan, hot oil” and that’s what you are actually getting because the cold oil heats up almost instantly when added to the hot pan.

You’ll get the same results if you heat the oil along with the pan rather than adding the oil at the last minute.

In fact some cooks prefer this technique because the appearance of the oil in the pan can give you some indication of when the pan has reached the proper temperature.

Serious Eats says the same thing: The thing is, only raw proteins will form this bond.

Heat causes proteins to fold in on themselves, or even to break down and form all new compounds.

Once in their folded or rearranged form, they no longer stick.

So the goal is to get the meat to cook before it even comes into contact with the metal by heating oil hot enough that it can cook the meat in the time it takes for it to pass from the air, through the film of oil, and into the pan.

So, you want a hot pan with hot oil.

Most of the time, this means that you want to preheat the oil with the pan, not add oil to a preheated pan, although the latter doesn't do any harm.

It just doesn't provide any benefit.

You'll notice I said most of the time , though.

There are times when you do want to preheat the cooking vessel before adding fat, and both of those times have to do with needing to heat the metal hotter than the smoke point of the oil you are using.

If you are cooking with a wok, getting proper "wok hei" (searing) requires heating the wok above the smoke point of vegetable oil, dry, a technique called "long yao" (video, skip to 3:22).

Classic cast-iron steak cooking uses a similar technique, heating the pan to 250 °C/500

°F before adding the oil or meat.

When cooking with butter as your fat (or a few other low-temperature oils like unrefined coconut oil), the burning point of the fat is sometimes a lower temperature than you want to cook at.

If so, the only way to get the pan hot enough is to preheat at dry plan, add the butter or fat, and then quickly add the food before the butter burns.

Neither of these cases has anything to do with preventing sticking, though.

They are both about not burning the cooking fat.

And the first technique only makes sense if you are using cast iron or carbon steel; it can damage other types of cookware.

You might ask: doesn't this apply to cooking sofrito, though?

And the answer is no.

Filtered olive oil has a smoke point of 210 °C, which is plenty hot enough for the very wet ingredients in a sofrito, which will drag the real pan temperature down to 105 °C or so in a few seconds anyway.

Further, a sofrito is made up entirely of non-starchy vegetables and aromatics, which means that sticking isn't a serious concern.

So, myth busted!

Regarding the (mis)conception that heating the pan will close its microfissures so micropieces of food will not fall into the small holes sticking to them: wrong.

Check the response to the more general problem of thermal expansion of a solid with a hole https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12599/will-a-hole-cut-into-a-metal-disk-expand-or-shrink-when-the-disc-is-heated

The only meaningful reason to heat the pan before the oil is to dry the pan, so the water droplets will not mix with the oil, then starting splattering around hot oil drops when the water-oil mixture gets heated to T>100C.As @MaxW

in the comments noted, a towel would do the same.

Recipes often call for a warm up for a reason similar to preheating an oven.

The recipe author has no idea how heavy you pan is.

What the author does know is that for just about any hot pan, 2Tbs olive oil will heat within a few seconds, where you can saute or whatever for a specified duration.

Samin Nosrat writes in her book Salt Fat Acid Heat: Preheat the pan to reduce the amount of time fat spends in direct contact with the hot metal, minimizing opportunity for it to deteriorate.

As oil is heated, it breaks down, leading to flavor degradation and the release of toxic chemicals.

Food is also more likely to stick to a cold pan—another reason to preheat.

But exceptions to the preheating rule exist: butter and garlic.

Both will burn if the pan is too hot, so you must heat them gently.

In all other cooking, preheat the pan and then add the fat, letting it too heat up before adding any other ingredients.

For a heavy pan and an underpowered stove, the difference can be few minutes versus few seconds for fat at gradually rising temperature.

How much of a difference this makes depends on the oil, but various processes (e.g. cis-trans isomerization) involved in burning fat vary their speed with temperature,

so longer time spent in the let's say range of 180-200°C really results in more degradation.

Source: my wife's a chemist

The major reason I can think of for adding oil to a pan after it is hot is safety: if you are heating a pan of oil and then forget it could start a pan fire.

If you add the oil only when you are ready to cook you don't have that risk.

I often add the oil when I first heat the pan because I can watch the oil and I can tell when it's hot by looking at it, but then sometimes I heat the pan dry and use the back of my hand to test for heat.

Either method works just fine.

Question: In the Netflix documentary  Salt Fat Acid Heat , Samin Nosrat says this when she is making sofrito and she is about to put olive oil into the pan:   This is one of those important things that I think home cooks always  forget, is how important it is to pre-heat the pan. You have to heat  the pan before you heat the oil.   Why do you need to heat the pan before putting the oil in?

Why do you need to heat the pan before heating the olive oil?

Preheating the pan before adding oil is sometimes thought to prevent the food from sticking, but this is not true. In some cases, it can be useful as a way to limit the oil's exposure to heat and the pan, or to dry out the pan completely before oil is added.

There are widely different on views on the pros and cons of preheating a pan before adding the oil. Overall, there are some occasions when it seems necessary, like wok frying, ensuring there is no water in the pan and preventing the oil from deteriorating. Otherwise it is unnecessary and not recommended for butter and garlic.

There is no need to heat the pan before adding the oil.

You need to heat the pan before adding the oil when you want the heat of the pan to be higher than the smoke point of the oil.

The only reason for preheating the pan is to dry it.

Preheating the pan helps to prevent the oil from deteriorating.

Do not preheat the pan when using butter and garlic.


Kiwi.

Don't knock it until you try it.

It will have a similar acidity and texture to pineapple.

Use ripe kiwi and maybe a touch extra lime juice!

Your pineapple in a salsa is going to add some sweetness, a lot of acidity, and crisp chunks that will be important to the texture.

While other tropical fruits would be have the sweetness and interesting flavor, I can't think of anything that adds the acidity and texture.

When ripe, mango and guava are quite soft and although there are delicious mango salsas it won't be similar to the pineapple at all.

You also need a fruit that will not be too distinctive of a flavor because that might distract from the strawberry or clash with the mint.

I think that I would use meyer lemons.

The meyers would be sweet enough not to bash you in the face but they still have some of the tartness.

The texture pops kind of like a pineapple and the flavor compliments both strawberry and mint.

Mango, specifically green mango.

You'll get a similar texture, some tartness, and it is already a widely used thing in salsas.

You could easily pick how tart you want it by switching to s slightly riper Mango.

I'd lean towards mango, with some lime juice to help match the acidity.

other possibilities to substitute for pineapple in that salsa: 1)

fresh rhubarb 1/4" cubed, some extra rhubarb juice, and sugar2)

jicima cubed and gently steamed, tamarind paste, and lime juice3)

big blueberries, halved, and sugar 4)

tart green apples cubed plus sugar and a little apple cider vinegar

Question: I need to sub pineapple with something else, im highly allergic to it.

What would be a good sub for pineapple, any other fruit or veggie for a strawberry pineapple mint salsa

Ripe kiwi with lime juice, meyer lemons or green mango with lime juice could add similar sweetness and tartness to pineapple.

Pineapple can be replaced in sauces by kiwi and lime juice, meyer lemons, green mango or mango and lime juice.

Kiwi and lime juice can be used in place of pineapple.

Meyer lemons have a similar sweet tartness to pineapples.

Green mango and mango with lime juice can be used as a substitute for pineapple.


There is a kraut cutter, a wooden board about 2 ft long with a diagonal blade.

We used all the time when I was a child.

We laid it on a large pot.

You cut heads of cabbage in half and push it over the blade flat side down.

Try google or an old fashioned hard ware.

You can be more efficient with a knife than any sort of kitchen aid attachment, which will require lots of prep, and slow going.

A better bet for home use would be the shredder on a food processor.

However, even then, while it will make quick work of shredding, you will have to cut the cabbage into smaller portions to fit into the processor...and, of course, empty the bowl relatively quickly.

Anything more efficient than

that will cost you a few hundred bucks.

Maybe your best bet is some friends and sharp knives.

Haha, we were doing that every fall in my childhood in Siberia.

We used an enamelled bucket and "sechka" https://65.img.avito.st/640x480/4526427565.jpg Splice a head of cabbage in big pieces with a knife, put them into the bucket until it is full, then smash it all with sechka.

- that guy is using another kind of sechka, but the principle is the same.

I was able to fill about 30 three-liter jars in a couple of days being a kid so that's very effective way to deal with a cabbage (not speaking of using any kind of machine).

The device costs around $10-20 in Russia, I don't know if you will be able to find and buy it in your location though.

At least now you know what to look for.

Do you have a food processor?

Most food processors come with interchangeable blades including a blade for shredding.

Put the shredder blade in, lock on the lid, cut the cabbage into wedges that will fit in the feed tube, power on, and feed in the cabbage.

You may have to empty the work bowl a couple times, depending on how much cabbage, but it's the fastest way I know of.

Knife, shmife.

You need a mulcher!

It is a $54 blower / mulcher from Home Depot.

Get a new one so it will be cleanish.

Quarter your cabbages then suck them up.

Your bag will fill with cole slaw-to-be.

Maybe wash it and set it aside for next year?

These things are merciless.

They will chop your cabbages fine.

Even if you use an old one and clean it first, the good thing about cabbage is that the pickling conditions naturally kill any bad germs.

You can make sauerkraut by lining a ditch with hay, putting in the cabbages, then more hay, then covering it up.

This is cleaner than that.

You can buy a cabbage shredder on amazon for $20 Or delis often use a deli slicer to finely slice lettuce

You mentioned a Kitchenaid stand mixer attachment.

Kitchenaid used to make a shredder/slicer attachment that's very good for this usage.

It had a wide hopper that could hold a quarter of a cabbage at once.

Unfortunately, the newer edition of this attachment has a smaller hopper and isn't suitable for cabbage, but the older style is still available from third party sellers.

Here's one example.

I'm good with a knife, and I sometimes use this for a single head of cabbage.

It's definitely faster than hand slicing for anything more than two or three heads, even with setup and cleaning time.

It also produces a very consistent cut.

It's definitely still going to require cutting up the cabbage heads first, and won't be as fast as some of the more expensive options, but it's an affordable alternative to the professional grade options.

Question: I'm growing cabbages in my garden this year and would like to make lots of sauerkraut, to eat and to give as gifts.  Gallons of it.  Is there an efficient way to slice or shred a dozen cabbages at a time?  Using a grater for that much cabbage is going to destroy my arms.  I would buy a one-purpose gadget or an attachment for my Kitchenaid mixer that didn't cost more than ~$60 if that's the right way to proceed.

How to efficiently shred a lot of cabbage?

A knife might be quicker than a kitchen aid attachement requiring time for setup, but possible devices include a kraut cutter, cabbage shredder or just the shredding attachment on your food processor.

The most recommended device for shredding cabbage is a food processor with a shredding blade or a cabbage shredder. Othe options include a kraut cutter, a knife and a mulcher.

Food processors usually come with a shredding blade. You can also buy a cabbage shredder.


while all of the above answers are correct, I want to provide a perspective as a native Chinese.

Rock sugar is better used (than granulated sugar) when you try to make dishes involving coloring the ingredient (by caramelization, dishes like braised pork belly (Hong Shao Rou need this step) mostly because of the shape difference.

Rock sugar has less surface area touching the oil while granulated sugar immerses itself in, which makes it react faster, and more likely to get burnt.

No, it doesn't, really.

Once it is dissolved, it behaves exactly the same.

Eaters won't know the difference when eating the finished product.

So, tastewise, there is no special reason to use rock sugar.

This answer assumes that you are adding sugar to a polar solvent (water, broth, alcohol...).

It doesn't cover techniques of adding the sugar to oil or other occasions where it is not dissolved.

In China, highly refined granulated sugar like we find in US is somehow uncommon.

The most common form of sugar is soft white sugar that is less pure and contains a few percent of syrup and other sugar family substance.

These imperfections sometimes affect cooking.

Rock sugar has a relatively larger market in China than the rest of the world for precisely this reason: over there it's the most common highly purified and refined form of sugar, because if it's not pure, it won't crystalize so large.

Crystalization is the further refinement process.

As a result, if a Chinese chef feel the need for highly purified sugar, he/she calls for rock sugar.

This logic is sometimes carried on by chefs that works with granulated sugar regularly that is truly indistinguishable form crushed rock sugar.

So, if your regular sugar is already crystalized high purity granulated sugar, then no need for rock sugar.

According to this , it is less sweet than regular white sugar which can be used if rock sugar is not available.

Even if it can/ has a brown/golden-ish color, it is not brown sugar which has a more distinct flavor.

My answer is based on experience;I’m not sure of the underlying science.

Rock sugar is not as sweet as granulated sugar.

It has a broader, less intense sweetness which works well in savory dishes.

It lacks a sweet “punch” which is more suited to desserts.

I use the white kind, though I’m sure

the yellow/brown sort has some additional flavor.

Question: Why do some Chinese dishes, namely braises and soups often call for rock sugar instead of regular sugar. Does rock sugar have any properties that would make it behave differently than regular granulated sugar?

Why is rock sugar used in Chinese cooking?

Rock sugar is lower purity and slightly less sweet, but otherwise very similar once dissolved and so you could just use common granulated sugar instead. However, it does have less surface area touchign the oil, which makes it react slower and therfore more suitable in dishes involving coloring the ingredient by caramelization.

Chinese recipes use rock sugar because granulated sugar is uncommon in China. Granulated sugar can be used where available. The taste of the end result will be the same. Rock sugar has the advantage, however, that it is less likely to burn in hot oil.

Rock sugar is better for use in hot oil as it is less likely to burn.

Rock sugar is less sweet than granulated sugar. It does not change the taste of the finall dish.

Granulated sugar is uncommon in China hence they use rock sigar. Rock sugar is not required if granulated sugar is available.


You don't need bread flour to make decent bread, plain flour doesn't generally have as much gluten content

but it has enough to make bread that's perfectly fine.

You won't get the same texture as with bread flour, it won't be as elastic a result.

Gluten is a protein, strong flour has more protein in it than plain flour, but there isn't always that much difference between the two.

It depends on the brand.

In my cupboard my plain flour has 10g of protein and my strong 12.5g, that's not that much more.

In the past I've had plain flour with a lot less, like 6g, so your plain flour may have more gluten than you think.

If your plain is a little weak you can use your strong flour to bulk up the gluten content, a 30/70 mix will give a small boost and a 50/50 mix more so.

But, remember if plain is all you have you can still make bread.

You may want to reduce your hydration a bit with lower protein, and give it a longer proving time to develop the gluten you have.

I agree with @GdD's answer, and it should be the main answer, but I wanted to throw in another bit of advice.

If you find that your all purpose flour does not give you the results that you want, look for vital wheat gluten.

It's less likely that people will be hoarding that.

Adding a bit of wheat gluten should make AP flour act much more like bread flour.

This is the trick bakers use for modern whole wheat and rye breads, as they contain much less gluten per weight.

In fact, wheat gluten is used frequently by low-carb bakers to create bread-like products without adding the starch of flour.

You can find recipes online to work from, but the recommended amount seems to be 1 tablespoon for every 2 cups (about 9 oz / 256 grams) of flour.

If you want to use a recipe you have and are particular, you can calculate how much protein is in the amount of flour in your recipe and add 1/4 as much ( of the protein, not the flour! )

vital wheat gluten by weight.

You may want to decrease the amount of flour by the same amount -- 1 tablespoon or whatever you calculated -- to maintain your hydration level. https://www.cooksillustrated.com/how_tos/5867-vital-wheat-gluten

"Bread flour" (or actually the wheat cultivar used for it) is a North American invention that has spread also to Great Britain.

In most other countries, home bakers are not even aware of the existence of bread flour, and bake bread with the equivalent of all-purpose flour.

You can use all purpose flour almost all your bread recipes without any change.

Only the highest hydrations (85% upward) will give you structural trouble.

If all you have had until now was bread made with bread flour, the new texture will be unusual, but if you approach it with openmindedness, you will soon get used to it.

If you either have too strong an averse reaction to bread that is similar, but

not exactly the way you like it, or want to try new things, I suggest that you simply go for European or Near East bread recipes and make those.

There is a huge variety of breads to be found there, and most of them are traditionally made without bread flour.

Just make sure to not use recipes that American bakers have modified to use bread flour.

You might have to (or enjoy to!)

branching out to breads made with flours from other plants too, not just wheat.

Beside the variety, it seems that the less common grains don't disappear from the supermarket shelf as quickly in a hamster run.

By "plain" I assume you mean AP (all-purpose) flour.

There are many great bread recipes that use AP flour.

There will be less gluten development with AP than with bread flour, so you may want to knead a bit longer depending on your recipe, but it should come out fine in any case.

Making bread is fun and easy, if you have kids, it is a good life skill to show them how to make some.

Yes you can use regular flour

, I use regular unbleached flour.

If you have yeast, then you can make simple no knead bread ; most recipes I've seen use 3 cups of flour, yeast, salt and water.

If you do not have yeast, then you can start to make a sourdough starter .

(disclaimer, I don't have an link with that site, they were the top answer from google).

Yes, plain flour (or mixed) will work.

The resulting loaf will probably not store well, it will become very hard.

No problem when eaten fresh.

Question: So... Since the lock-down everybody turned baker (can't understand why, since there is plenty of bread in the shops) and I can't find bread flour anymore.  Is there a way to use plain flour instead?  I have 1.5kg of strong flour left, can I mix it with plain flour and get decent results?

How to make bread with plain flour?

Bread flour has more gluten and will produce a more elastic texture, but it is perfectly possible to make bread with normal flour and in many countries this is the norm.

American bread recipes call for bread flour but recipes from many other countries use all purpose flour. American recipes make need to be tweaked in order to make them successfully with all purpose flour.

All purpose flour is what most people use to make bread outside North America. Choose a recipe that is not American for a good result.

The texture is not the same as bread made with bread flour so a few changes may be needed to the recipe and it may take time to get used to it.


Kneading in a bowl is time-consuming and doesn't give as good a result as kneading on a flat surface, however I'll concentrate on cleaning.

First, don't let things dry out, it's much easier to clean when things are moist, if you do let it dry out moisten it and let it soften before you try and clean it.

Use cold water as hot water makes starches and proteins stick a lot more.

Next, invest in a curved dough scraper, and use it to scrape out the dough scraps from the bowl into the garbage before you clean it.

A curved plastic one works best as it has a bit of flex, although in a pinch you can use a big metal spoon.

I scrape by bowl pretty much clean before I put it into the sink.

Use the flat of the scraper to clear most of the dough and flour from your countertop, then spray down with water, let it soak for a few minutes, then scrape again.

Once you have it scraped well sponge it down.

Alternatively (with respect to @GdD's answer), let it dry out completely .

Totally dry dough doesn't stick all that well to many surfaces (glass, plastic, non-stick).

It then chips/scrapes off quite easily.

If I get it on my oak worktops and don't notice immediately, that's what I do, scraping with a plastic scraper or a butter knife, even a fingernail on the last bits; the same approach works on my stand mixer bowl and dough hook.

With some containers you may need to soak a few stubborn bits especially if they're caught in corners, but oiled wood doesn't like that.

If you are clearing up wet, very wet is the way to go, and a brush clogs less than a sponge.

I hand-work my dough either on a pastry mat or if that's dirty non-stick sheet (which isn't non-stick against dough unless well-floured, but cleans easily).

These are both fairly easy to wash up.

Amazed nobody else has given the easiest answer, which is to soak it in warm soapy water for a while (at least a few minutes, up to an hour) before scrubbing it out.

It makes everything soft and partially dissolved and it just wipes away.

For handwashing: Use a dishwand instead of a sponge (the dough won't stick to the plastic bristles).

Use warm rather than hot water, to avoid 'cooking' the starch onto things - but no need to use cold water.

Alternatively: Scrape as much of the dough as you can into the bin with a plastic spatula.

Then put it the bowl in the dishwasher.

and any sponge I use for it gets ruined afterwards

I had the same problem until I started to use a brush like this one (courtesy of Ikea https://www.ikea.com/fr/fr/p/rinnig-brosse-a-vaisselle-vert-90407811/ )

It really makes a difference: cleaning the brush is much easier, including greasy/oily substances (in addition to sticky substances like dough in your case)

Question: I've been making my first steps in baking recently. I usually knead the dough in the same large bowl I mix the dough in to minimize the mess but it's still a pain to wash the bowl and any sponge I use for it gets ruined afterwards.Any advice on how to make washing off dough?

How to clean up after kneading dough?

It is easier to clean dough before it dries, so first scrape as much dough away as possible with a spatula or dough scraper before soaking in warm (but not hot) water, which will loosen the dough without cooking it onto the bowl surface. When cleaning, use a brush rather than a sponge, as this will clog much less easily.

When cleaning bread dough from surfaces, the first step is to scrape away as much dough as possible, using a readiil available scraper. The next step is to clean while the dough is still wet. There is some debate as to whether hot or cold water is best. A brush is better for cleaning than a sponge.

Clean bread dough while still wet. There is a debate about whether warm or cold water is best.

Use a brush rather than sponge for cleaning.

Scrape as much of the dough off the surafce before washing. Specially scrapers are available for this purpose.


Since the events of the 2009 movie take place in an alternate timeline to that of the original series, there is no logical problem with it being canon.

The hows and whys are detailed here: Bob Orci Explains How The New Star Trek Movie Fits With Trek Canon (and Real Science)

Being an "official" product, and given the fact that Gene has passed --

Yeah, I would consider it canon.

Like it or hate it (I enjoyed it myself)

it does conveniently "reboot" the timeline in a manner that lets it remain canon without making any of the previous films inaccurate to the new storyline.

It's probably best to think of it as "new" canon.

They rewrote history so continuity with the old series doesn't matter.

Which lets them play with those tensions, of course--those of us who know the old material can enjoy the changes to the universe, a sort of meta-level of writing for the "in crowd".

It has its own canon.

It's not the same as Gene Roddenberry's canon.

I was surprised at seeing Spock's love story with Uhura in the reboot because they're not the way I know the characters.

Uhura appears to be attracted to Spock in 'The Man Trap' (Who isn't) and tries to flirt with him

and he has no idea what she's doing

and she gives up really quickly while making a quip at Spock.

She's attracted to him.

There's no indication that she's in love with him.

Spock doesn't appear to be any close to Uhura than he is to Sulu or Chekov or Scotty.

Uhura even says that Kirk is the "closest thing [Spock] has to a friend.

" When Spock dies in Wrath of Khan

it's Kirk who is at the glass.

Uhura isn't mourning more than anybody else.

Kirk is the one who risks everything in Search for Spock to bring him back.

In other words, they are not together in TOS canon after 79 episodes and 6 movies and even in the reboot Spock Prime (Who is from the TOS timeline).

Now, the writers may have thought about having Spock and Uhura pursue a romance and it may have been because of racism as they didn't, but the point is that they scrapped the idea and they weren't even shown to be that close.

There have always been fans who think Spock would work well with Uhura but it wasn't an official relationship in TOS and Spock was actually a lot closer and more affectionate toward Captain Kirk.

People may tease K/S "slasher" and say that this isn't canon either but the characters are still a lot closer.

I was surprised by the pairing in the reboot because it was against the relationship that had been (Or hadn't been) established for over 40 years.

But then people always point out that it's an alternative reality/timeline.

In THAT canon, Spock has a pre-existing affectionate relationship with Uhura before he befriends Kirk.

At the time of the first movie Uhura appears to be his only friend, she is a respected student and apparently (Although not really stated clearly) a lover.

Part of the reason I felt a bit let down by the romance (Despite good acting and good chemistry) was because they had taken a very interesting character like Spock and made him almost into a typical archetypal male hero.

Cool thing about Spock was that he could be a strong male character without constantly chasing chicks the way Kirk did.

Also, Uhura is the only frequent female character.

It doesn't seem particularly creative to match Spock with the only female around and also have Kirk chasing her to create a love-triangle.

In TOS Uhura was a respected member of the crew and she wasn't automatically turned into a love interest for all the males around her.

Now one of Uhura's main plotlines is that she's pining over Spock.

Despite my disappointment, it IS a different timeline and people will point that out.

But then they'll go ahead and claim that Abrams making Spock-Uhura a canonical relationship in the reboot makes it canonical in the alternative timeline.

IT DOESN'T.

If it's a different canon, then it's a different canon.

End of story.

The canon overlaps when Spock Prime comes into the reboot universe but the character's stories are different.

What happens in the reboot timeline only happens in the reality of the reboot.

If we're so obsessed with canon to the point of making fun of "slash fangirl" then we shouldn't be claiming that an alternative timeline effects the canon of the original timeline.

By that logic, Spock's mother is dead at the beginning of TOS, which we clearly see that he isn't, and Vulcan has been destroyed

which it clearly hasn't and Kirk has not brother called Sam which he clearly does.

After my little rant, the reboot has A canon

but it isn't the same as Gene Roddenberry's canon.

Pine's Kirk is BASED on Shatner's Kirk

but he's the alternative timeline Kirk.

He's not exactly the same guy as TOS Kirk.

The Uhuru/Spock love story could be canon if you take into consideration the timeline was altered as soon as George Kirks ship encountered the anomaly at the beginning of the movie, from that point in time an alteration to the timeline has occurred.

Whatever the consequences of that were, they occurred in such a way that it facilitated sometime in the future a relationship between Uhuru and Spock that would not have occurred otherwise.

Question: While I think the  Star Trek  (2009) movie was pretty cool looking, its story-line wreaks total havoc with all the existing post original series content.  I know that Gene Roddenberry was very strict about what was considered canon in the past, basically anything he didn't like well (like the animated series).  But now, since his death, it seems like all the later series are considered canon.  Is the latest  Star Trek  (2009) considered canon?

Is the Star Trek (2009) movie considered canon?

Since the events of the 2009 movie take place in an alternate timeline to that of the original series, there is no logical problem with it being canon.   It's probably best to think of it as "new" canon.

Star Trek 2009 can be considered as a new canon or as having its own canon, since the events take place in an alternate timeline to the original series.


Star Trek, Various, 1966 (earliest occurrence) P=NP in the Star Trek universe, but the people there aren't aware of it.

Evidence:

There is encryption but it is always breakable.

P

=NP will let you crack everything but one-time pads but the Federation stubbornly continues to use NP-based ciphers.

The efficacy of the universal translator.

P

=NP would make learning new languages a breeze, at least for a computer.

Learning systems would be so simple and straightforward to implement that there wouldn't be a linguist left with a job.

The efficacy of the bio-filter.

The transporter routinely filters unknown organisms, viruses and other hazards when crewmen are beamed aboard ship.

But "bio-filter" is a misleading term as it brings to mind some sort of sieve that catches all the bad stuff and passes only the good.

In reality running such a "filter" over transport data would be the mother of all induced subgraph isomorphism problems , as you would have to identify all virus-sized structures in an organism chock-full of such structures.

P

=NP magicks away the input-related exponent that makes such problems intractable even for small graphs.

Self-aware machine intelligence is created with ease.

Wesley Crusher created one by accident.

So did Richard Daystrom.

The Enterprise D computer cooked up Moriarty in its spare cycles, Dr. Farallon created the Exocomps, and so on.

All you seem to need to do is build something equivalent to a theorem proving system and let it run long enough to stumble over the proof that P or some other tractable class is equivalent to NP and the system is off to the races.

Or perhaps the Star Trek denizens are collapsing the polynomial hierarchy by technological means.

The Federation, Borg, etc. seem to have ready access to time machines, wormholes, exotic matter, and superluminal signalling, so they could be using closed time-like curves for computation.

This

according to Scott Aaronson would allow them efficiently solve PSPACE-complete problems.

Antibodies, Charles Stross, 2000 A short story that hinges on the fact that solving P=NP is a required prerequisite for developing a computer intelligence.

It's available in his book Toast .

Stross has put the full text of this book online.

( This link will take you directly to the story.)

And according to Stross's site, the story was: Published in Interzone #157; republished in "The Year's Best Science Fiction #18" (ed.

Gardner Dozois).

Mentioned in Locus' "

Recommended Reading List" for 2000.

Shortlisted for the 2001 Theodore Sturgeon Award (lost to Ian MacDonald's "Tendoleo's Story").

The other Stross book that deals with this is The Atrocity Archives , where Alan Turing solved P=NP, but they then found that doing so allowed access to the Cthonic Realms, so now an entire branch of Government exists to prevent this discovery becoming public knowledge.

In Vernor Vinges "Zones of Thought" series ("The Blabber", A Fire Upon the Deep , A Deepness in the Sky and the forthcoming The Children of the Sky ), computation is easier in some parts of the galaxy, allowing for things like artificial intelligence and FTL travel.

It has been speculated (but there's no direct evidence in the books) that P=

NP in these zones.

In the fanfic Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality by Eliezer S. Yudkowsky, Harry gets a time machine and tries to factor the product of two large prime numbers using this machine, with a somewhat weird result.

So it is not completely given that NP=P , but seems probable.

The Roaring Trumpet by Spague de Camp and Fletcher Pratt, published in May 1940 in Unknown.

Here, psychologists posit that schizophrenics are actually mentally accessing alternate universes, and by applying the proper equations, one could travel to that alternate universe and bring the persons mind back to our universe.

It was an intellectual exercise which the main protagonist Harold Shea decides to test out.

He jokingly refers to travel via syllogismobile, but it involves studying and constructing the logic of the universe destination and reciting it out loud.

This generally begins with "if P is equal to not P..." And goes from there.

The entire Enchanter series has them universe hopping through mythology and fairy tale and classical works by doing so.

I suspect, never having given it any real thought, that by prefacing with P=NP, they were distinguishing the universe as one in which magic functions.

Nemesis, Isaac Asimov, 1989

It talks about imposibilities and the implications of an universe where the laws of physics doesn't apply

The practice effect , David Brin, 1984

This seems a likely candidate.

In the depicted universe, a robotic probe from our universe starts to self-optimize both physically and mentally while the human intelligence remains unaltered.

Also physical objects tend to self-optimize: a wooden sleigh develops lubricant to easily slide on the road.

This practice effect can be boosted by a special state of trance where the solution appears immediately by itself, hence inanimate objects perform a wide-range evolution within non-polynomial time (Seeking a near infinite array of posible solutions within a short period of time).

This universe actually transcends P=NP.

In the story Starshield Sentinels by Margaret Weis and Tracy Hickman, there were computers/artificial intelligences that could answer any question instantly by sending the question back in time to itself, giving it 'time' to solve it.

The only hiccup to this was that the computer had to be 'awake' long enough to solve it (something like Deep Thought from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy needing 10 million years to solve the question to life, the universe, and everything).

While I don't know if this exactly pertains to everything P = NP, it does solve the variable/solve clause in the question.

Of course the computers all go nuts and try to kill everyone in the story.

Can't we stop trying to invent killer robots now?

Question: I wonder whether anyone has written a novel set in a universe where  P=NP , in the event that there is more than one, which was the first?   In this universe all problems that could be verified in polynomial time (NP) (given the solution) could also be solved in polynomial time (P).

Which was the first novel set in universes where P=NP?

Works set in universes where P=NP are said to include The Practice Effect, by David Brin (1984); Antibodies (2000) and The Atrocity Archives, by Charles Stross (2000). P=NP in the Star Trek Universe in 1966.

There are 3 possibilities for where  the first novel was set in universes where P=NP - 'Star Trek Various 1966, 'Antibodies' by Charles Stross 2000, and 'The Practice Effect by David Brin 1984.


One thing about Discworld that is important to realize, in the 35+ or so books there are really 5+ different threads that hardly cross at all.

The witches stories (which later expand further into his children's series -

The Tiffany Aching series).

The wizard stories featuring Rincewind, Archechancellor Ridcully and friends, of which some of the Rincewind stories could possibly even be another group.

The City Watch stories featuring Vimes, Nobby, Colon and the patrician.

The City stories featuring Moist Von Lipwig, the more recent Going Postal and Making money .

The Death stories featuring Death and his granddaughter Susan.

There are also 2 or 3 that just hang out by themselves, like Omnia of Small Gods, and Pyramids, just they happen to occur on Discworld.

Some people just fall in love with one of those themes and don't really like the others, so if you read one and don't like witches, maybe switch ahead.

I love them all, but personal favorite is the city watch, and the character of Commander Vimes.

This image from the lspace page really sums it up nicely.

Note - image kept up to date on this Pinterest page

Order of writing is fine, and pretty much matches the internal chronology.

You can find it here .

But bear in mind that the first two, The Colour of Magic and The Light Fantastic , were written before Pratchett really found his voice, and are lighter and more uneven in tone.

You might want to start with Equal Rites and then work back to the first two later.

Note also that it's Discworld, not disk-world.

Pratchett is English, and that's how we spell "disc".

I've edited your question to reflect this.

Recently there was a reading guide released for Discworld.

note: the website seems to regularly be inaccessible, and there are some noticeable typos in the infographic as of January 2016 (see second answer for a semi regularly updated/corrected fan alternative) For order of publication start at the triangle point leading to "The Color of Magic."

For topic specific reading order, there is a color coded guide to follow various characters / groups.

Wizards - Purple Witches - pinkish purple?

Witches /

Tiffany Aching - pink Death - blue Ancient Civilizations - lime green City Watch - green Industrial Revolution - orange Science Novels - yellow

There are recommendations as to multiple possible starting places at Discworld Reading Order Guides and there are annotations to the various books in that general vicinity at The Annotated Pratchett File, v9.0

If you have already read some and you intend to read all of then

I woulds suggest reading in the order of publication.

It is likely that you might then want to go back and re-read some groups together but the as-published order gives a nice variety of content and also lets you see TP's style evolve, and it does change a lot as the series goes along.

I would say that for the first 10 books or so there is an objective improvement and later it diverges in terms of themes so you may find that there are some stories which appeal to your more.

I still rate Lords and Ladies as one of the all time best.

for me the real classics are : Pyramids Lords and Ladies Men at Arms Hogfather Jingo

The Truth Thief of Time Night Watch

The Wee Free Men Going Postal Thud

Question: I've read some of the Discworld books, and they were referencing each other in an order different than what I've been reading.  If I wanted to maintain chronology, and get all of the back references, which order should I be reading the books in?

What order should I be reading the Discworld books in?

There are recommendations as to multiple possible starting places at  Discworld Reading Order Guides  and there are annotations to the various books in that general vicinity at  The Annotated Pratchett File, v9.0. However, some people suggest reading the books in the order of publication.

There are various recommendations for reading order and starting point for Discworld. However, reading them in the order of publication is also recommended.

There are recommendations for different orders of reading Discworld and different starting points.

Reading in the order of publication is a good option.


Because at the time, the Alliance of 4 races was fighting the Goa'uld.

They wouldn't necessarily have the spare resources to fend them off and go chase after one lone planet that had rebelled a while back.

It's unclear when the Alliance ceased, but I assume by then, there was little reason to take over Earth and other planets that had fought off Goa'uld rule.

This explains why SG-1 were able to find so many diverse civilizations in their explorations.

The Goa'uld believed the Ancients were protecting Earth This very question was addressed in the 2013 SG-1 novel Moebius Squared , which explores the altered past of Season 8's Moebius two parter.

The novels are considered to be in official continuity with the TV show.

* Daniel explains that he found records of other human uprisings aside from Egypt, such as one in Japan against a Goau'ld subservient to Ra.

Most of these rebellions had the direct aid of the Ancients (and their immediate descendants), who were refugees from Atlantis.

After many such uprisings and the one that finally drove out Ra from Egypt, he decided to stay away to avoid taking further losses at the hands of the Ancients.

By that point, the Goa'uld had enough humans on other worlds that they no longer required a supply from Earth.

In the events of the book itself, In 2800 B.C., a symbiote is stolen from Abydos so that Teal'c from the Moebius timeline can live, and Ra realizes the thieves are from Earth.

As punishment, he takes his mothership to Earth and invades once again.

Ra captures O'Neill and assumes he's an Ancient since he has the Ancient gene, which he is concerned about since Myrdin (Merlin) aided in the rebellion against him before.

Ra assumes that the Ancients are going to try to drive him off the planet again, yet believes they are in decline and no longer have the ability to protect Earth.

By the end of the book, O'Neill devises a plan in which three puddle jumpers cloak and decloak in order to pretend that they have an entire armada.

With the help of the Tok'ra queen Egeria, Ra is incapacitated during the battle and is led to believe that the Ancients were more powerful than he thought.

Ultimately, Ra decides that having underestimated the strength of the Ancients, and being driven off once again, he ought to leave Earth alone for good.

The Goa'uld had enough humans on other worlds, so there is no strategic reason to invade again.

* Author Jo Graham, who wrote many of the Stargate novels, stated that because every word of the novels was extensively reviewed by MGM and intended to integrate with the show, the novels are canon , although they had the right to disregard them in the future if they like.

Back then it was just some backwater planet, Ra had already mined what Naquadah that was on Earth, So when they rebelled and buried the gate he just cut his losses and never bothered to go back.

Giving Earth time to develop on it's own.

Also as seen in SG:

Atlantis the ancients spend time there in the middle ages (Merlin)

so they might have shielded the Earth from any other Goa'uld who might have had their eye on it.

First of all, the Goa'uld seem to have taken over the galaxy around 5000 BC.

Certainly, it hadn't been for any appreciable amount of time.

I think it's not inconceivable that while the Goa'uld had stargate travel, they had little to no spaceflight capacity 5000 years ago.

Specifically, it is stated in the finale of season 1, the Goa'uld took years to get from one system to another.

Given that timescale, it's no wonder they wouldn't want to attack Earth.

Further more, they likely didn't have as strong as an army as they clearly possessed in the time of the movie and SG-1.

Therefore, I don't think it's inconceivable that they couldn't attack Earth from space.

For reasons listed in this question , they couldn't use the Beta Gate either.

By the time of the Rebellion on Earth there were probably hundreds of worlds populated by human slaves lorded over by hundreds of System Lords all vying for power.

Earth was also Ra's personal domain, so to poach humans on his world probably would be frowned upon violently,

only the most powerful or desperate Goa'uld would attempt such an affront.

At that point it was no longer a vital resource, with comparably poor mineral resources, and no Naquadah, it lost all strategic significance.

The conflict with the other 4 Alliance races, plus any internal fighting would make it a non priority for years.

And after a while it is just an embarrassment to Ra.

By the time he was no longer occupied elsewhere to deal with it it would have been a blow to his prestige.

Better to be forgotten and covered up.

scifi.stackexchange.com/users/4751/Tyson of the Northwest

Question: Why didn't the Goa'uld simply send a ship to Earth after Earth's rebellion?  This came up after looking at the following question: " why they didn't attack Earth through the Beta Gate ".

Why did the Goa'uld not send ships to attack Earth after Earth's rebellion?

The Goa'uld believed the Ancients were protecting Earth.  This very question was addressed in the 2013 SG-1 novel  Moebius Squared , which explores the altered past of Season 8's  Moebius  two-parter. At that point it was no longer a vital resource, with comparably poor mineral resources, and no Naquadah, it lost all strategic significance. In addition, at that time, the Alliance of 4 Races was fighting the Goa'uld.

The Goa'uld had other wars to fight and believed the Ancients were protecting the Earth. Moreover, the Earth was a minor backwater and not worth their attention as it no longer had vital resources.

The Goa'uld believed the Ancients were protecting the Earth.

The Earth was a minor backwater not worth the attention, with no vital resources.


There's a loose link.

Some variation on the events in the movie preceded the first episode of SG-1.

There have been several jokes that suggest that the O'Neil in the movie isn't the O'Neill of the show, however, the O'Neill of the show was on Abydos.

The planet Abydos is on the other side of the universe in the movie, but is in the Milky Way in the show, relatively close to Earth.

The Abydosians spoke a variant of Egyptian in the movie, almost everyone in the galaxy speaks English in the shows, and the Abydosians get more proficient in it each time they appear.

The Stargate on Abydos in the movie has different symbols than the Earth gate, but in SG-1 all the gates in the galaxy have the same symbols, except for the point of origin.

In the movie the Stargate just connects Earth to Abydos and back.

In SG-1 they generalized the idea into a galaxy-wide network of gates.

In the movie they don't show how they dialed the gate on Abydos, the shows invented the Dial Home Device (DHD) to simplify this.

If all you've seen is the movie, and you haven't sat down to watch any of the shows, start with SG-1.

The first episode of that picks up where the movie left off, and the first season will familiarize you with the basics of the Stargate universe.

Stargate Atlantis started airing at the same time as season 8 of SG-1, so they're happening at the same time, but with minimal interaction between the two shows.

Stargate Universe started after Atlantis ended, and can be watched after you've started Atlantis if you want to be up to speed (they recently had an Atlantis regular show up on Universe for an episode).

There are definitely several links.

Here's a few of the main ones: Daniel Jackson Jack O'Neill

The pyramid-shaped starships The teleporter rings The resurrection chambers.

The Goa'uld (They aren't mentioned by name in the movie, but they do exist) Use of Egyptian Mythology

The staff weapons Abydos, and several of the people from Abydos (Sha're, Skara, and Yasuf, among others).

Major Kawalski from the original SG team is featured in the pilot and second episode and has some minor cameos in certain episodes.

Just for completeness, here's some major differences: In Stargate SG-1, most people speak English.

In the movie, most people speak Goa'uld, which is a variant of ancient Egyptian.

The actors who play all of the common characters are different, only Yasuf and Skara are played by the original actors from the movie.

The stargates on each planet had a different set of symbols in the movie.

In SG-1, they share the same set of symbols, for the most part.

The movie seems to take place in another galaxy, while the TV series indicates that Abydos is relatively close to Earth, only 25,000 light years.

The personality of O'Neill in particular is very different, the movie he is a much harsher person than the TV series.

Daniel Jackson seems to have fewer problems with allergies in the TV series than the movie.

As it's been said, the link is tenuous.

It's almost better to think of the show as happening in a slightly different universe from the movie - there are some significant changes which don't really go against what the movie said or showed, but do go against what it implies.

They share the same basis, and the events of the movie ARE considered to have occurred prior to the start of the series.

The characters of the series would likely, if they watched the movie, consider it a dramatization of their (revised) official reports on the mission.

Another difference not mentioned in the answer above is the nature of the Goa'uld: In the movie, IIRC, Ra is "the last?

member of a dying race".

In the show, he was just one of the Bad Guys.

In the movie, it looks like Ra, looking sorta like a real quadrupled (gray man stereotypical alien), "merged" with the host body, seemingly like a ghost?

This is based on the scene where the nuke blows up Ra's ship in the end of the movie.

In the series, Goa'uld are parasite snake-like creatures living inside hosts' bodies.

There are also no Jaffa in the movie, they seem to use humans as slaves rather than the Jaffa as the guards have no head tatto.

But they do in the first season of SG-1.

So the Jaffa don't come into play till the pilot episode.

Question: I rewatched the Stargate movie recently, and it got me wondering about what I've been missing with regards to the TV series that have been spun off.  I enjoy reading people's opinions on which series is better, but I'm curious about what I'll be getting myself into when I start watching the episodes.  Is there any link between the movie and the shows, other than the namesake?

What sort of linkage is there between the Stargate movie and television universes?

The link is said to be loose and tenuous.  Some say that it is almost better to think of the show as happening in a slightly different universe from the movie. However, they share the same basis, and the events of the movie are considered to have occurred prior to the start of the series.

There are several tenuous links between the Stargate movies and the series. The series appears to be in a slightly different universe. However, the events of the movie are considered to have occurred prior to the start of the series.


The earliest novel-length published work with Elves in a recognizable "modern fantasy mode" is most likely Le Morte d'Arthur , by Sir Thomas Mallory, finished around 1470, and first published in 1485.

While Le Morte is literally nothing new, even when written, it's one of the earliest written works with recognizable, embodied fae in human shape, and armed and armored as men.

Note that Le Morte draws heavily on many tales and stories later recorded elsewhere

; it comes together, however, as the definitive Arthurian tale, and the Fair Folk within are credited as inspiration for many later versions of Aelfdom...

The name elf has been borrowed from mythology, so the term itself has been used for perhaps several thousand years.

However the term refers to different kind of beings depending on time and place.

The wiki page on elves gives an introduction to the concept of elves in different mythologies.

In mythologies they are either treated as Semi-divine and powerful magical beings; or Small, mischievous beings (i.e. a subset of fairies) Note that in the first case, they are either divided into light and dark elves, or represent light with dwarves representing the dark.

In fantasy, they have been popularised by Tolein into a very standard image, but people still use some alternate representations for them.

This is discussed in detail at this wiki page - Elves in fantasy fiction and games .

A summary of the article states that The fantasy genre in the 20th century grows out of 19th century Romanticism.

19th century scholars such as Andrew Lang and the Grimm brothers collected "fairy-stories" from popular folklore and in some cases retold them freely.

A pioneering work of the genre that would come to be known as "fantasy" was The King of Elfland's Daughter, a 1924 novel by Lord Dunsany.

The Hobbit by J. R. R. Tolkien (1937) is seminal, predating the lecture On Fairy-Stories by the same author by a few years.

In the 1939 lecture, Tolkien introduced the term "Fantasy" in a sense of "higher form of Art, indeed the most nearly pure form, and so (when achieved) the most potent".

Elves played a central role in Tolkien's legendarium, notably The Silmarillion.

Tolkien's writing has such popularity that in the 1960s and afterwards, Elves speaking an Elvish language similar to those in Tolkien's novels (like Quenya, and Sindarin) became staple non-human characters in high fantasy works and in fantasy role-playing games.

Post-Tolkien fantasy elves (popularized by the Dungeons & Dragons role-playing game) tend to be more beautiful and wiser than humans, with sharper senses and perceptions.

They are said to be gifted in magic and mentally sharp and are characterized as lovers of nature, art, and song.

A hallmark of fantasy elves is their long and pointed ears (a convention begun with a note of Tolkien's that the ears of elves were "leaf-shaped").[22] Also note that in popular culture, Christmas elves are very different from Tolkienian elves, and are closer to fairies.

I don't think there's going to be a definitive answer to this...

Elves have been a part of folklore since long before any 'modern' books, and quite possibly before books even existed.

Brewer (17th Ed): Elf [...] Originally a dwarfish being of Germanic mythology, possessed of magical powers which it used for the good or ill of mankind.

And then goes on to quote Shakespeare.

So in answer to: what's the earliest book that featured Elves?

A Midsummer Night's Dream is 1595 (strictly not a book on that date) so likely earlier.

I think faeries and elves came out of Irish mythology.

The Tuatha De Danann who are their gods were powerful beings skilled in magic.

Then the Christians (there's never any peace with them around) converted the Irish.

But the people still believed in the gods, only as faeries.

The idea of Elves may be very, very old.

Hesiod (a contemporary of Homer) mentions the waves of the Golden race, Silver race, Bronze race.

Tolkien's chronology associates elves with the Silver race (as does the linguistic similarity: silver--silvan).

But the idea my also be autochthonous.

There's an Inuit legend about a village of petite people who had the power of making their bodies lighter or heavier at will.

Question: Elves are a common appearance in many worlds in Fantasy. From Tokien, to Harry Potter, to Dungeons and Dragons, and Eragon. Many works feature Elves in some way, all with many common characteristics. But, I'm kind of curious, what's the earliest book that featured Elves?

What is the first appearance of Elves in fantasy?

Faeries and elves are said to come from Irish mythology, so the idea of elves is very old. Elves have been a part of folklore since long before any 'modern' books, and quite possibly before books even existed.  However, the earliest novel-length published work with Elves is most likely  Le Morte d'Arthur , by Sir Thomas Mallory, finished around 1470, and first published in 1485.   A Midsummer Night's Dream  is 1595 and Hesiod (a contemporary of Homer) mentions the waves of the Golden race, Silver race, and Bronze race.

Elves have been part of folklore, mythology and legend for an extremely long time, long before books were invented. Earliest publish works referring to Elves include Shakespeare's A Midsummer Night's Dream, 1595 and Le Morte d'Arthur, published in 1485.

A number of old books mention Elves, including A Midsummer Night's Dream, datingfrom 1595. A contemporary of Homer also mentioned the Golden race.

The idea of Elves may be much older than books. They may stem from ancient mythology, folklore and legends.


This is how it has broken down so far (more or less): Season 1 (2011): A Game of Thrones Season 2 (2012): A Clash of Kings Season 3 (2013): The first half of A Storm of Swords (aka Steel and Snow )

Season 4 (2014)

: The second half of A Storm of Swords (aka Blood and Gold ) Season 5 (2015): Both A Feast for Crows and A Dance with Dragons and new material Season 6 (2016): Both A Feast for Crows and A Dance with Dragons and new material

We also know: Season 7 (2017):

Unpublished material and new material Season 8 (2018): Unpublished material and new material Seasons 1 and 2 were a book each, but it was changed for Season 3, which became the first half of Storm of Swords , and Season 4 became the second half.

The producers then, somewhat surprisingly, managed to squeeze the next two books, A Feast for Crows and A Dance with Dragons , into Season 5, by removing lots of what many people saw as extraneous plot lines.

It's worth noting that there has has been some overlap.

Certain events have drifted into different seasons, so the above isn't always strictly true -- just mostly true.

Season 6 took most of its story from The Winds of Winter (although there were some unused things from A Feast for Crows and A Dance with Dragons that appeared in it).

George RR Martin confirmed this in a Vanity Fair article (" George R.R. Martin Has a Detailed Plan For Keeping the Game of Thrones TV Show From Catching Up To Him ").

That's the plan.

Seasons 1 and 2 (so far) are a book each.

Though this might change for book 3 (Storm of Swords), which is a lot bigger than the first two.

In this interview , George R. R. Martin admits that its going to be hard to fit book 3 into a standard season.

Relevant quote follows:

The real crucial point comes with the third season with Storm of Swords.

Storm of Swords is a monster of a book, a gigantic book.

It's 500 pages longer in manuscript than Clash of Kings was.

And Clash of Kings was 100 pages longer than Game of Thrones.

You cannot do Storm of Swords in 10 hours.

I think they need to make two seasons out of that.

For a more exhaustive chapter-to-episode breakdown derived from Joel Geddert's Game of Thrones episode chapter coverage interactive table (Note: contains chapter titles with POV character names): Season 1 A Game of Thrones: 69 of 73 chapters A Clash of Kings: 1 of 70 chapters Season 2 A Clash of Kings: 55 of 70 chapters A Storm of Swords: 5 of 82 chapters Season 3

A Clash of Kings: 1 of 70 chapters A Storm of Swords: 44 of 82 chapters A Dance with Dragons: 1 of 73 chapters Season 4 A Storm of Swords: 20 of 82 chapters A Feast for Crows: 1 of 46 chapters A Dance with Dragons: 2 of 73 chapters Season 5 A Storm of Swords: 3 of 82 chapters A Feast for Crows: 17 of 46 chapters A Dance with Dragons: 25 of 73 chapters

The Winds of Winter: 2 of ??

chapters Season 6 A Storm of Swords:

1 of 82 chapters A Feast for Crows: 6 of 46 chapters A Dance with Dragons: 2 of 73 chapters The Winds of Winter: 1 of ??

chapters

Note that some book chapters have not been covered on the TV show either because events were changed or cut from the TV show, and that the more the show has continued, the more it has invented new material of its own.

For another good reference, the Boars, Gore, and Swords podcast is experiencing the TV show before the books and they have been doing a book club after each season.

Check out their episode guide .

Now that season 4 has ended as well, it would be good to point out that the third book, A Storm of Swords has been broken in two seasons: season 3 and 4.

But also, in those two seasons (especially the fourth one), there were a lot of chapters from the fourth and fifth book; like for instance the chapters with Reek and some of Brienne's.

I remember reading somewhere that this is indeed the plan: each season is roughly equivalent to one book.

It used to but it doesn't anymore.

The first 3 seasons and the first two book + part 1 of the third line up almost perfectly.

Season 4 is still kinda the second half of the third book.

After that

no.

It's a mix and match of the 4th book, 5th book, their own material perhaps based on Martins hints and maybe of the 6th book which we wont know until 2020 or later since that's when it'll be out.

Maybe (yeah official date is sooner but every time we get close to it

it's moved up by

a year so).

Season 7 and 8 will be a small part of the 4th and 5th books (for example the whole fake Targeryan), whatever Martin told them, whatever they made up and whatever spoilers for the last two books they have.

How much Book 7 will match anything is a stupid question for now.

Try asking in 2035.

Question: Does each current  Game of Thrones  season roughly equal one  A Song of Ice and Fire  book? And do we know which future seasons will cover which books?  I am planning to read the first book after the TV show has finished depicting the events in the first book. I would like to know if after each TV season ends I can expect to be able to read a book covering the events depicted on screen?

Does each season of Game of Thrones roughly equal a book?

Seasons 1 and 2 are equivalent to one book each. The third book has been split between seasons 3 and 4.

The Game of Thrones series matched books to seasons for the first 3 seasons. After Book 3 was too large to be fitted into one season and had to be split into 2, the matching became less clear.

The plan with Game of Thrones was to match a season of the series to a book. This was the case for seasons 1 to 3.

Book 3 was so big it had to be split into 2 seasons, and from then on, the seasons do not match the books so clearly.


There are many novels that outline the events that occur after the Battle of Endor.

Luke's development as a Jedi features in many of these.

In general, he learns by: Self-development.

For example, in Star Wars 92: The Dream we see that Luke stayed on Endor for a while, honing his Force powers.

Visits from Jedi spirits.

These are more hints as to what to do next than actual training.

For example, Obi-Wan tells Luke to seek out the Lost City of the Jedi on Yavin IV.

Force visions.

For example, also in The Dream , we see Luke have a vision that leads to him taking up an apprentice.

Artefacts, documents, books, and so forth that belonged to Jedi of the past.

For example, in The Lost City of the Jedi , we see that the city contains a vast Jedi library.

There's a lot of "searching for old Jedi stuff" in the various novels.

Luke is a Jedi Master by 11 ABY (when he proposes the New Jedi Order in Jedi Search ).

There is the possibility that the force ghosts of Kenobi maintained a link with Skywalker for a time after the events of Return of the Jedi -

although, it is shown that by about 10 ABY (in the Expanded Universe), it was increasingly difficult.

Also, it may well be that he has reached the point where advancement is beyond mentoring - in most disciplines, this can only take you so far.

Finally, by taking on the training of other force users, he starts to learn more again, both from having to learn how to teach the ways of the force, and also by the insights of his students.

Again, this parallels real-life - I find you learn a lot more trying to teach others than you ever do being taught.

He spent a brief period of time on the Dark side as the apprentice to the resurrected Emperor Palpatine, who I'm sure provided quite a bit of training as well.

Can't remember what book series that was though.

Luke had learned enough during his time on Dagobah to be able to continue his training on his own.

He had a solid enough foundation so that while he did go back to Dagobah to complete his training, but leaving against Yoda and Obi-Wan's wishes, he lost the chance to fully complete his training under Yoda.

Luke gained a new maturity after he lost his hand on cloud city.

He got TOTALLY serious in his Jedi training and in the six months between Empire and Jedi, his powers had grown significantly as outlined in the Shadow of the Empire book.

About two years after ROTJ, Luke went to a planet called Dathomir (The Courtship of Princess Leia) to help rescue Han and Leia.

This was one of the best single books out there.

On that planet Luke encountered a huge crashed ship about the size of the Victory class star destroyer.

In it he saw an entire ship that he eventually realized was a mobile Jedi training ship called the Chuonthor.

With the Jedi being relatively small in numbers overall, they needed a mobile training ship as they traveled the galaxy searching for new recruits.

Later on after he helped defeat a large group of evil witches (The Nightsisters) that were very powerful, with the leader Gethziron being nearly as powerful as Palpatine, the leader of the light side witches, the Singing mountain clan, gave Luke an ancient box that Yoda had entrusted her for safekeeping over 300 years earlier.

Yoda had foreseen that Luke would come to the planet and help destroy the evil Nightsisters.

When Luke opened up the box, he found hundreds of information disks containing more information on Jedi training, techniques, knowledge, lore, history, powers and more, than he could ever study in a lifetime.

This was the main way that Luke was able to fill in all of the gaps in his training that he had because he had left Dagobah to try and save Han and Leia on Cloud City.

It was not long after that that Luke was now a Jedi Master, especially after defeating the resurrected Emperor a couple of years after that.

He then began to search the galaxy for other force sensitive people to start to rebuild the Jedi order throughout the galaxy.

As others mentioned, there were some other discoveries that Luke made as well which also furthered his own knowledge of the Jedi, the force and

it's capabilities.

Luke later learned new force powers from groups such as the Ang-Ti Monks, the Falanassi which taught Luke how to create powerful force illusions, black holes and much more.

Lukes array of powers and skills are quite amazing which is why he is without a doubt, one of the most, if not THE most powerful Jedi to ever have lived, with Yoda likely being second on that list.

He took the title of grand master after the Yakusan Vong invasion.

Proir to this he kept the title of Master and all Jedi masters were technically equals though Luke was recognized as the unofficial leader of the order.

During the war it became clear that the order needed a single voice of leadership and direction.

Luke assumed the title without dissent.

Question: In the Star Wars Expanded Universe, Luke Skywalker is shown to have become a "Jedi Grand Master". However, he was not even what could have been called a Jedi master after the Emperor's defeat in  The Return of the Jedi .  He obviously continued to learn the ways of the Force afterwards - so where did he get his training from? From books? Other people?

How did Luke further his training after the Empire's defeat?

In general, he learned through self-development. Luke had learned enough during his time on Dagobah to be able to continue his training on his own.

Luke did a sustancial amount of train using different means. Though mainly through self development he did have assistance from Jedi Spirits, The dark side, Ang-Ti Monks as well as artifacts left behind by other jedi.

Luke was well trained enough to engage in self development to hone his Jedi skills.

Other individuals taught him whether it was from spirits, the dark side ir tge Ang-Ti Monks.

Force visions would give him direction as well as artifcats and documents left behind by previous jedi.


Those wings are called S-Foil Historically, S-foils had been developed to address overheating issues on wing-based starfighters.

Because of the proximity of engines and weapons systems to narrow wiring that fit inside the thin wings, an excess of heat could cause mechanical meltdowns that would be devastating to the capacity of the fighters to function.

also They [X-wing] had two pairs of wing-like strike-foils, or S-foils, mounted at the rear of the craft on opposite sides.

The foils on each side locked in place flush against each other; during combat, however, the foils were folded out to increase the spread coverage of the laser cannons

mounted at the tips of the foils.

This gave the craft its distinctive "X"-like appearance when viewed from the front or rear.

The cannons on some earlier models could not be fired with the S-foils in locked position, perhaps as a safety feature.

During hyperspace travel, the S-foils remained locked to conserve energy.

T-65 X-wing on starwars wikia.

For an in-world explanation, I would posit the theory that the wings close for normal travel and hyperspace for the purpose of strength and stability in the wings and they open during combat for two reasons.

First is that by spreading the blasters apart they give it a greater field of fire and greater chance of hitting the enemy.

Second, by moving the engines a bit further apart it could aid in making the craft more maneuverable and better able to change its angle of attack with less thrust.

I'm seeing some suggestions about increased maneuverability.

Well... no good can really come of applying real-world science to Star Wars.

Case in point, get ready to fall asleep:

Aerodynamically speaking, the change in configuration would have a negligible effect on maneuverability or, if anything, could make the X-wing LESS maneuverable when flying in an atmosphere.

In sciency terms, maneuverability is the inverse of stability; if a plane is more stable, it's less maneuverable, and vice versa.

So first we look at the TOP wings.

If we look at the design of most real-world private and commercial airplanes, the wings are constructed with a slight upward angle--referred to as "dihedral"--when viewed from the front.

This is the greatest contributor to stability on the roll axis of an airplane because the inward tilt of each wing's lift vector tends to roll the plane back to a wings-level attitude.

Next look at the bottom wings.

Since someone's already mentioned the Harrier, let's use that

: The Harrier's wings are built with a heavy downward angle--or "anhedral.

" This makes the aircraft extremely maneuverable, which implies a huge loss of stability due to the outward cant of the lift vectors.

The result seems like an equal and opposite effect on maneuverability: the dihedral top wings negate the effect of the anhedral bottom wings, leaving us with an unchanged situation.

BUT--without jumping too far down yet another aerodynamic rabbit hole--

the addition of another wing plane adds a complication suffered by real-world biplanes, in which the top wing tends to undermine the lift of the bottom wing, leading in THIS case to a net increase in stability--in other words, a net decrease in maneuverability.

Ergo, under the shackles of real-world science, the change in wing configuration has, at best, no effect, and at worst, a negative effect on the X-wing's maneuverability.

Best to just drink the koolaid.

I've read that the closed position was required for atmospheric flight.

The Z-95 was the X-Wing's precursor.

There were likely many design choices in the Z-95

that made it cheaper to design the X-Wing as a transformer then to redesign it from scratch.

The reason may be for accuracy.

According to the X-wing series by Michael A. Stackpole, the weapons are calibrated to a certain distance (usually a few hundred meters).

It seems to me that it would be most effective for these four blasters not to fire in two closely grouped pairs, but to be more spread out.

Additionally, the purpose of the wings coming together likely makes atmospheric flight easier (more airplane-like), so the reason for them being separate in attack position may be less significant than the reason for them being together in standard flight mode.

Landing?

As they are never shown flying in the atmosphere in a lift generating motion.

They seem to take off more like a harrier(with endless fuel).

So never any need for them to generate lift.

Pretty good question.

I think the model builders just came up with something cool and lucas said ok.

Wings closed: all energy to engines, weapon capacitors empty and cool.

Wings being closed is for landing and storage purposes as well, and maybe wings closing when weapons are disabled is an automatic feature e.g 'Navigation mode' usually engaged prior to landing/docking.

Wings open: provides cooling for weapons energy capacitors which are stored in the wings, the capacitors and Taim&Bak lasers produce massive amounts of heat so both the weapons and capacitors are kept at a distance from each other to better dissipate heat and radiation.

Since the X-wing didn't see combat every time it flew, its wings remained mostly in closed position, seldomly activated for combat.

How's that for a theory?

In real aerial dog fights, the wing cannons of an aircraft are calibrated to have the bullet´s trajectory converge at a certain distance before the aircraft.

This is where the ideal shooting distance is indicated in the gunsight.

Moving the guns further apart in fighting configuration gives the engineers a wider range to tilt the guns to form a firing cone.

From a movie makers point of view, unfolding the wings to attack gives the spaceship a more menacing, warlike appearance, similar to a japanese judoka assuming fighting stance.

Question: The X-wing fighters can change their wing configuration, from the X shape during battle to flat wings (the wings on the same side fold together) during FTL travel.  I'm guessing that the real world explanation is something like, "it looks cool". But what is the in-universe explanation?  There is no (little) resistance in space, so wing configuration wouldn't make that much difference. I can't see it making much change to performance, e.g. in angular momentum, either.

Why do X-wings change wing configuration?

scifi.stackexchange.com/users/143/Reinstate Monica - Goodbye SE

Wings closed is for landing and storage purposes and wings may close when weapons are disabled is an automatic feature. Wings open provides cooling for weapons energy capacitors which are stored in the wings, the capacitors and Taim&Bak lasers produce massive amounts of heat so both the weapons and capacitors are kept at a distance from each other to better dissipate heat and radiation. During hyperspace travel, the S-foils remained locked to conserve energy.

There are a number of theories that speculate over why the wings open and close in the forms. Theories include Closed wings are better for hyperspace travel, landing, sotrage while open wings are better for weapons accuracy, better weapons cooling capabilities etc. All in all there is no in-universe explanantion. There are only theories.

The theory could be that the wings are closed for normal hyperspace travel

There are written documents that state the closed position was required for atmospheric flight

Closed wings may be better for landing and storage based purposes

Wings open: provides cooling for weapons energy capacitors


Yes.

In Star Trek:

The Next Generation 's " The Chase ", the Federation, Klingons, Cardassians, and Romulans are all on what amounts to a treasure hunt:

Representatives of all three races are together when all the pieces are put together and it turns out to be a program that takes over a tricorder and projects an image of an ancient alien who tells them that they found the galaxy empty, other than themselves, so they spread seeds of DNA throughout so there would be other races and that the existing races would be descendants of that seeding.

In addition to "The Chase" , in the original series episode "Return to Tomorrow", Sargon says that his race had seeded other planets, and that humans and others could be their descendants.

Quoting the Wikipedia article:

Sargon repeatedly refers to the landing party as his children.

When Kirk asks why Sargon refers to them as "my children," Sargon says it is probable that human beings actually are descendants of his people.

Six thousand centuries ago, they explored and colonized the galaxy just as Earth people do now; he speculates that Adam and Eve were two of their travellers.

Dr. Mulhall objects that life on Earth evolved independently, but Spock says the colonist idea would explain certain enigmas in Vulcan pre-history.

Either way; Sargon can't confirm either legend.

All this would have happened half a million or so years ago, long after the events referenced in "The Chase".

During the Voyager episode 'Death Wish', the crew is transported back to the big bang by two

Q. One

Q jokes that if they did stick around their DNA would be spread through-out the universe and perhaps that is how there are so many humanoids.

Then he covers his mouth, like it was a slip up that he said it.

The voyager is transported back to the future

so it wasn't their DNA that was spread.

But the idea seemed interesting that pieces of DNA could be spread more or less ubiquitously over the entire universe.

In TOS, there was a race called the Preservers in the episode

The Paradise Syndrome .

They transported groups of endangered indigenous people across the galaxy and terraformed the planets as well (a possible explanation for all those earth-like planets).

TNG

The Chase , was written by Ronald D Moore.

In the Star Trek TNG Companion

he mentioned that he intentionally did not specify that these aliens were The Preservers and left it up to the viewer to draw the connection.

The Preservers are mentioned quite often in the trade paperbacks, and it's generally assumed that seeding is how the galaxy was populated.

The extraterrestrial seeding theories are all a bit suspect to me from a scientific point of view (besides the Adam and Even nonsense from Return to Tomorrow ).

We already know that modern humans descended from primates which have been on earth for 65 million years, and their evolutionary roots can be traced back to the common ancestor of all mammals, the Synapsids, which lived 250 to 300 million years ago.

So any exogenic explanation for the origin of humanity has to be set much earlier than half a million years ago.

And the "seeds" themselves would have had to been single-celled organisms to explain what we know from modern genetic analysis of life on Earth.

A more plausible explanation is one that attempts to explain why so many species on different alien worlds have near-identical analogs on Earth (hawks, dogs, lizards, beatles, worms, etc.), and that would be convergent evolution .

It's possible that due to similar environments existing on different worlds, evolution has independently found the same "solutions" in terms of general body layout and organ function.

Physics (for the most part) follows the same rules no matter what planet you're on, so that in itself is going to eliminate certain body designs while gravitating towards others.

That would explain why most complex life forms are bilateral-symmetric and only a few are radial-symmetric.

It also explains why most animals have an even-number of limbs and heads are placed at the front or top of the body.

So the reason why humanoid species are so common in Star Trek is probably because the humanoid body shape is the natural upright evolution from a quadriped bodyshape, and it's one that allows one to use their hands for manipulating the environment (e.g. creating and using tools).

And we don't see any sapient aliens with 2-mouths or eyes on their back because it's just inefficient to have these designs.

My understanding - although I cannot quote particular evidence - is that the seeding argument is the reason for this.

I think that the understanding is that some species was responsible at core for seeding the entire galaxy.

This includes earth, and explains why many creatures have the core bipedal approach to life.

Of course, many of them have evolved in a range of ways to make them more of less humanoid.

Most have forgotten that there was a seed race, some have stories that explain it.

I think the question of who the initial seed race was is deliberately avoided - not that anyone actually knows for certain.

It may be extinct except in its many seed forms.

This is explained in The Paradise Syndrome , the 25th episode of Season 1 of The Original Series : MCCOY : Were you able to make sense out of the symbols?

SPOCK :

Yes.

The obelisk is a marker, just as I thought.

It was left by a super-race known as the Preservers.

They passed through the galaxy rescuing primitive cultures which were in danger of extinction and seeding them, so to speak, where they could live and grow.

MCCOY : I've always wondered why there were so many humanoids scattered through the galaxy.

SPOCK :

So have I. Apparently the Preservers account for a number of them.

Question: The vast majority of intelligent species in the Star Trek universe are bipedal, humanoid creatures.  From the lot I've seen of TOS, TNG, DS9, Voyager, Enterprise, and the movies, it seems that this coincidence goes largely unquestioned.  Metaknowledge grants that it is  much  easier to have human actors portray human-like beings, and so this was probably done due to budgetary/technological limitations.  However, I'm wondering if an in-universe reason for this was ever given or explored?

Is the humanoid appearance of most alien species in the Star Trek universe ever canonically addressed?

In addition to  "The Chase" , in the original series episode "Return to Tomorrow", Sargon says that his race had seeded other planets, and that humans and others could be their descendants

There is an in-universe episode that explains the humanoid aspect to most alien races. A master race was responsible for seeding the galaxy and even mixing with other species at the time.


The Emperor was very, very paranoid about the status of House Corrino.

He was the emperor, yes, but Leto was his cousin, also of noble birth, and Leto was vastly more popular than anyone else at the time in the Landsraad.

Leto was the unofficial spokesman of the Landsraad, in fact, their "highest position".

That alone sent Shaddam into fits, someone who was able to claim the throne by virtue of noble blood was popular and well supported among most of the noble houses.

However, Leto also had a huge private army, and, House Atreides developed training that made their soldiers superior to the Sardaukar.

"The Padishah Emperor turned against House Atreides because the Duke's Warmasters Gurney Halleck and Duncan Idaho had trained a fighting force -- a small fighting force -- to within a hair as good as the Sardaukar.

Some of them were even better.

And the Duke was in a position to enlarge his force, to make it every bit as strong as the Emperor's.

This is a quote from Thufir Hawat.

If the Atreides had managed to train their entire army in this manner, they would have had a force bigger than the army of House Corrino that was also better in combat than the Sardaukar.

I assert that they would have been better because they were clever where the Sardaukar were brutal.

Shaddam IV knew all of that when he set in motion the plan to lure the Atreides to Dune and use their age old vendetta with the Harkonnens to destroy them.

You see, your question asks why the Emperor agreed, but, really it was his plan.

Hence, "plots within plots".

He had plotted all of this and made the Harkonnens think it was their own idea!

As to "why does it have to be on Arrakis but not Caladan"?

If you're asking why the emperor or the Baron can't attack until after the Atreides leave Caladan, it's because Caladan is a huge planet with billions of people and wantonly attacking the fiefdom of a noble house with billions of witnesses is certain to bring censure from the Landsraad.

On Dune, the only real witnesses who aren't Atreides are the Fremen, and they aren't going to say anything.

The Emperor was suspicious of the Duke Leto and wanted him gone.

He could not move against him directly as the Lansrad should not approve due to the popularity of Duke Leto.

So, the Emperor used the vendetta between Baron Harkonnen and Duke Leto as a tool to hide his true motives.

This had a dual purpose:

destroy House Atreides and put House Harkonnen in the emperor's debt for a long long time.

Keep reading the book, it is all explained therein.

scifi.stackexchange.com/users/2682/Sardathrion - against SE abuse

The subliminal part of the plan and true goal... Economics.

Leto: "Imagine what would happen if something should reduce spice production.

"Whoever had stockpiled mélange could make a killing."

Paul said.

"others would be out in the cold" ...He nodded. "

The Harkonnens have been stockpiling for more than 20 years.

"They mean Spice production to fail and you to be blamed." "...

Knowing that the Harkonnens stockpile mélange, we ask another question: Who else is stockpiling?

That is the list of our enemies.

Certain houses we Knew were unfriendly and some we'd thought friendly.

We'd need not consider them for the moment because there is one other much more important: Our beloved Padishah Emperor."

The Emperor is the only person authorized by law to hold spice stockpiles.

A major reason for the Emperor's unpopularity is that he launched several military operations against Landsraad nobles in possession of illegal stockpiles.

One such raid used forbidden atomics and provoked legal backlash against the Emperor from the Landsraad.

The basic economic principle of supply and demand dictates that if supply is reduced the value increases.

House Corino's wealth and thus power would be greatly improved by a spice production bottleneck.

Ridding himself of the popular Duke Leto is just a bonus.

Arrakis is so remote and relatively uninhabited that the Emperor could do as he wished there

(ie: assassinate Duke Leto), and then write the "history" of the event to suit his own purposes.

House Atreides was forced into moving to Dune because they could not refuse Shaddam's request without appearing either foolish or disloyal or both.

House Atreides fully understood the defensive situation that they were put in by the Emperor (Hawat was no fool), and the first book begins with this given assumption.

The tenets of Kanly were always closely followed, as a matter of honour amongst the Landsraad.

Shaddam is trusting that he can discredit or destroy House Atreides with his "magnanimous" decision.

Leto is acting very boldly by taking an even greater position of power offered by one who is surely uncomfortable with the level of power that the Atreides already exhibit.

Shaddam was also recovering from the amal scandal that occurred 15 years prior to the events in book one Dune (read the House Chronicles, house Atreides, house Harkkonnen, house Corrino, in that order).

Shaddam was placed under sanctions for his role in the debacle that was exposed by Duke Leto's attack on the Tlelaxu who had conquered Ix 35 years prior to the book Dune .

Duke Leto was also the one who suggested sanctions against Shaddam instead of outright removal from the throne, in order to ensure that the imperium did not fall into a massive civil war by members of the Landsraad trying to claim the throne for their selves.

Due to all of these events where Leto was perceived by the emperor as an enemy, and the fact that Shaddam had no sons but was not sterilized by his bene Gesserit wife.

Accompanied by Leto's rising popularity, Shaddam was not only feeling threatened, he was guaranteed to ceed the throne to some one not bearing the Corrino name and he didn't want his nemesis cousin Leto to be the one to marry Iralan and become the next emperor.

Thus, by tricking the Landsraad into thinking the Harkkonen were jealous of the CHOAM contract being taken from them two decades earlier than expected, and given to their arch rivals the Atreides and the attack was simply spite, Shaddam kept his already sanctioned butt from falling back into the hot seat.

Question: I am reading book 1 of the Dune series. I just read the chapter in which the Harkonnen took control over the house of Atreides in Arrakis with the help of Yueh.  I know the Emperor sent a legion of Sardaukar (disguised as Harkonnen troops) to help the Baron Harkonnen to kill Duke Leto and his men. Why does the Emperor agree to do so? And why does it have to be on Arrakis but not Caladan?

Why did the emperor send the Atreides to Arrakis, then the Sardaukar to remove them?

The Emperor was very, very paranoid about the status of House Corrino.  The Emperor was suspicious of the Duke Leto and wanted him gone.

The Emperor was paranoid about the status of House Corrino. Moreover, the Emperor was suspicious of the Duke Leto.

The Emperor was paranoid about the status of House Corrino. The Emperor was suspicious of the Duke Leto.


The movie does not directly explain how Thor gets to Earth.

It is hinted that Odin uses up considerable personal power to get Thor to Midgard and that it may have a time limit.

Here is an interview where the writers and actors talk briefly about it here .

Loki says, '

How much dark energy did the All-father have to muster to conjure you here?'

Tom Hiddleston recalled in a recent interview.

"The Bifrost is still down, he can’t just be riding down the rainbow bridge, Heimdall [is gone], it’s all changed since the end of 'Thor'

so it’s obviously cost Odin a significant amount to get there," he explained.

"I guess he’s been sent down by Odin to go and deal with this crazy cat that is his brother." Chris Hemsworth reveals that while the movie doesn't really go into the specific details of Thor's return, his time on Earth is actually limited.

"It’s not really explained, but it’s assumed that he can only be there for a window of time.

Odin has had to call in some favors from around the realm.

And he turns up.

That or the bus," he joked.

As an aside, Mjolnir has always been able to open portals between Asgard and Earth, so I wonder why no one there did their homework and just put the line out there in the script.

As Thaddeus correctly states, The Avengers doesn't explain how Thor got to Earth, except making brief references to “dark magic”.

Since then, a prelude comic to Thor 2 was published which explains this in more depth.

Thaddeus’ answer was written in June 2012.

In June 2013, Marvel published a comic called Thor: The Dark World Prelude .

It spans the gap between Thor and (presumably) Thor: The Dark World , covering events of The Avengers (which occurs between the two).

This comic explores the destruction of the Bifrost, and the effects that has on the nine realms, and Asgard's ability to keep the peace.

Here’s a page from the first issue, which mostly confirms Thaddeus’ theory:

Odin uses his staff (and dark magic) to send Thor to Earth (called Midgard above), after witnessing Loki’s plans and realising that humans had the Tesseract.

In the second issue, Thor and Heimdall use the power of the Tesseract to rebuild the Bifrost.

This allows them to restore peace to the nine realms, and presumably sets the scene for Thor’s return to Earth in Thor: The Dark World , The Avengers 2 , et al.

The question is a little confusing.

As far as I know, the specific plot that played out in the film Thor didn't occur in the comics, it was largely an original story.

So the particular issue of Thor needing to get to Midgard (i.e. Earth) from Asgard without using Bifrost may not have happened in the comics.

In the film, it's clear that the Bifrost is still not functional.

Loki asks Thor how much "dark energy" Odin had to summon to "conjure" Thor to Earth, but we don't see the process happen.

At the end of the film, Thor returns to Asgard by using the power of the Tesseract (the cube from Captain America ).

This conveniently confirms the fate of the Red Skull at the end of Captain America .

In an interview with Empire Magazine about Thor: The Dark World , Director Alan Taylor said: When the Bifrost was broken at the end of the first film, Odin had to conjure a lot of dark energy and go through a lot of personal sacrifice to try and get his son back to Earth.

And it was a one-shot deal.

If Thor didn't succeed, without the Tesseract he couldn't have got back again.

The amount of energy Odin expended to get Thor to Asgard was significant , so much so that he couldn't bring Thor back.

I think dark energy should be read as magical energy, for all intents and purposes, in the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

If so, the powerful sorcerers such as Loki, Odin, Dr. Strange, etc.

would kinda be like mutants with the natural ability to draw on and manipulate dark energy to achieve various "supernatural" effects, with the use of different "focuses," such as Loki's staff in Avengers, to allow for a finer level of control, more powerful effects, and/or a broader range of effects.

Assuming this, Odin basically used his natural powers to channel a large amount of dark energy into a spell to send Thor back to Earth, probably leaving him exhausted just as Loki was at the beginning of the movie.

Side note, Loki is basically the most powerful sorcerer in Asgard, so he can probably draw on much larger amounts of dark energy at a time than Odin, which would explain why he was able to connect with the Cube and open a portal from so far away without direct access to the Cube.

In the movie Loki jokes about how much dark energy Odin had to use to send Thor back.

My guess is Odin used the infinity gauntlet that was seen in his weapons vault in the Thor movie.

The gauntlet controls space, time, soul, mind, reality, and power so it could be used to transport Thor back.

This also ties in to the easter egg with Thanos in the credits because the infinity gauntlet belonged to him in the comics.

Loki said to Heimdall that there were other dark and hidden ways from where one can go into other realms...

at the end

Heimdall repeats this to Thor...

maybe Thor succeeded in finding a similar path back to earth.

Question: In the comics, Thor is on Earth and the bridge between the two worlds of Asgard and Earth is intact.  I haven't read the comics, but in the movie, the gateway collapses. If that's so, how does Thor get back to Earth to become an Avenger?  Or did the movie mess that up?

How does Thor get back to Earth in the Marvel comics?

The movie does not directly explain how Thor gets to Earth, except for making brief references to “dark magic”.

Dark magic explains how Thor got to Earth.

Dark magic explains how Thor gto to Earth.