bp_psy
- 469
- 8
dkotschessaa said:Oh Doctor Who is amazing. And not a bit of science in it.
There is more science on the inside.
dkotschessaa said:Oh Doctor Who is amazing. And not a bit of science in it.
Simon Bridge said:Guessing you mean FTL in terms of star-travel... it requires overcoming some specific problems that suggest that it is implausible ever... but SF is inherently speculative so one can speculate that the laws we know are a subset and some super-law will allow it in special circumstances.
Have you read through:
FTL Travel and relativity FAQ
... part IV deals with the specifics of what FTL will mean while the earlier parts provide a crash course on the physics. Most SF gets around the problems by making sure the circumstances never comes up.
FTL in general terms is possible already - just not useful for SF ... and there are suggestions that large amounts of negative energy via the Casimir effect will allow slightly FTL signals ... at least if some hyped proposals work. This is still fringe stuff but you can build a what-if story around it. If it does work, then 500 years is plenty of time for the technology to develop to exploit it.
FTL travel gets you lots of uber-tech - ftl communication, time travel etc.
The challenge for an author is to figure what role travel to different Worlds plays in the story.
Mute said:In the movie Battleship, my suspension of disbelief was destroyed right out of the gate when the main male character won over the token hot girl by stealing a chicken burrito for her. Who gets won over by a chicken burrito?!
The rest of the movie seemed believable by comparison.
Digitalism said:I dislike hokey spiritual references as ways of solving dilemmas in science fiction. The ending of battlestar galatica didn't do it for me. The same could be said for ds9, babylon 5's wrap up of the vorlon/shadow conflict, wrap up of lost, wrap up of Hyperion series, etc
This should be useful to see what you would consider an acceptable level of unreality ;)scifiscript said:A few scenes come to mind as far as being highly realistic in a sci-fi space drama.
The effect of exposure to hard vacuum is something movies almost always get wrong - but, to be fair, it is very difficult to do.Supernova(2000) Robin Tunney's character is blown out the hatch. The remaining oxygen in her lungs is expelled and instantly freezes propelling her deeper into space.
Hanging onto something was probably a reasonable thing to expect Ripley to do - but would it really have required super-strength to avoid being sucked out? The decompression occurred of an extended time so it didn't even count as "rapid decompression".Aliens(1986) Sigourney Weaver's character hooking her arm on the ladder inside the airlock. The rest of the scene requires her to have the strength of She-Hulk. I still give the movie two thumbs up!
So it was the horror of the scene that struck you as the particularly realistic bit?2001: A Space Odyssey(1968) When Hal 9000 pushed the doctor off into space. That has to be a very horrifying potential risk for any astronaut.
Well it's a crash course - the information in there would normally be delivered to students over a year.scifiscript said:Very dense information. [FTL and relativity faq] The example of the life time of a muon was easier to understand than the moving train example.
Simon Bridge said:However - just a cursory examination of these examples suggests you are not all that worried about real science in your SF ... that's no biggie - the point is to tell a story not teach physics.
Simon Bridge said:Well it's a crash course - the information in there would normally be delivered to students over a year.
Curious though - most people prefer the moving train one: they find "muons" just too exotic and suffer brain-freeze.
You need to be able to get space-time diagrams and then read the last part for the main issues with FTL - but you see the nitty gritty of what needs to be overcome to have FTL travel and what else it gives you?
You can also see why so many movie producers will pay for a science consultant ;)
It's not trivial.
That's pretty much what I said.scifiscript said:I'm into a realistic approximation of what I believe could reasonably occur.
OH I was thinking of the final scene in Alien for some reason.I mentioned Ripley in Aliens needed the strength of She Hulk not because of rapid decompression. The ship she was on had artificial gravity. The queen alien grabbed Ripley with her tail. The airlock slowly opened.
The matter is not addressed in the film is it - the logic of the scene appears to be that the artificial gravity is not "switched on" inside the large airlock during the action. Whatever, it was the inertia and drag that were the issues rather than weight.A) Do the occupants in an airlock exposed to outer space experience weightlessness?
OR
B) Are you only exposed to weightlessness outside the confines of the artificial gravity?
I would be more dangerous next to the molten steele than next to an erupting volcano (depending on the volcano and the mill of course)I have over a decade experience working in a integrated steel mill. You can become dangerously comfortable working around molten metal. But soon as SHTF you're reminded the danger is always present. I'll try and paint a description for those unfamiliar with the steel industry. The BOP making a HEAT at night would be similar to watching a volcano erupt at night. Impressive and lethal all at once.
I have run an RPG where FTL space-travel used gods ... the jump-drive worked by the priest/engineer making the right kind of blood sacrifice over the engines at the right time.scifiscript said:This might be a copout or a layman's perspective concerning FTL. If you believe in GOD with no further explanation simply that HE/SHE exists. Then how much of a stretch is FTL with no extensive explanation.