What Sci-Fi Got Wrong: Alcohol in Space

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ivan Seeking
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Sci-fi
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the portrayal of alcohol and other elements in science fiction, examining how these representations may not align with realistic future scenarios. Participants critique various aspects of sci-fi narratives, including character behaviors, technological advancements, and societal progress, while reflecting on the implications of these portrayals in the context of human and alien interactions.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Meta-discussion

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express skepticism about the continued portrayal of alcohol consumption in future societies, suggesting it may be more about character relatability than accurate predictions.
  • Concerns are raised about the scientific accuracy of microbial mutations in narratives, with one participant criticizing a specific plot point in Michael Crichton's work.
  • Participants note the unrealistic depiction of physical effects of rotation and acceleration on objects and people in spaceships, with some citing exceptions in specific works.
  • Critiques are made regarding the portrayal of advanced aliens as monstrous and prone to tactical errors, contrasting this with a desire for more nuanced interactions.
  • One participant questions the depiction of time travel and its effects on the environment, noting inconsistencies in how time manipulation is portrayed.
  • There is a discussion about the likelihood of humans being evenly matched against invading aliens, with some arguing that such scenarios are overly optimistic.
  • Participants highlight the lack of imaginative progress in sci-fi narratives, often reflecting contemporary societal issues rather than envisioning radical futures.
  • Some express frustration with the reliance on familiar tropes and settings in sci-fi, suggesting it limits creativity and exploration of new ideas.
  • One participant argues that sci-fi should not be an excuse for poor storytelling, emphasizing the need for quality writing regardless of the genre.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally express multiple competing views regarding the portrayal of alcohol and societal progress in sci-fi. There is no consensus on the accuracy or implications of these portrayals, and the discussion remains unresolved with various perspectives presented.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the dependence on narrative conventions and the challenge of predicting future societal behaviors and technological advancements. Participants acknowledge that many sci-fi works reflect the time they were created, which may impact their relevance and accuracy.

  • #121
Borg said:
Where exactly are the forces on the person coming from in your diagram? If the person is on the other side of the ship, the ship pushes on them and they experience a force. Nothing is pushing on them when they're on the back side of the rotation.
Yeah. I'm looking at "spinning disc" simulations and noting in which direction the net forces act.

1633710673395.png

The transverse force on them is to pull them away from the ship (left diagram). As you say: negative g's.

1633710807378.png

"Path of ball" shows what the ball is doing in free fall, from the carousel's POV. It's pulling away against the carousel spin.

So, you're right.

But I'm not sure it's a fault in the film. I don't think the intention of the narrative was to suggest that they were being crushed against the ship.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #122
Borg said:
No, I mean that the ship is rotating away. They should end up free floating in space until the other end of the ship comes around and hits them.
We are talking about the same thing then.

However, they are attached with a line (and not free falling) and while we don't see exactly where the line is attached it is is showing with a clear angle with respect to the spaceship on the shots we do get to see, meaning it likely is attached or clamped to the side of the ship somewhere "above" them but "below" the center of rotation, and in that case there should be a small acceleration towards the side of the ship as long as they keep their radial velocity low. I'm too lazy right now to estimate how much angle they need to keep their boot soles in static friction against the ship side and I'm also pretty sure the director and movie crew wasn't thinking through such arguments when setting up for the shots.
 
  • #123
Filip Larsen said:
I'm also pretty sure the director and movie crew wasn't thinking through such arguments when setting up for the shots.
There's the rub.

The first film is famous for its technical accuracy.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Filip Larsen
  • #124
DaveC426913 said:
The first film is famous for its technical accuracy.
Indeed. I only remember they clearly missed to portray proper physics (at least to first order) in the scene with the small moon shuttle where outside shot shows the shuttle in free fall while inside shots show crew move around as if in near-normal gravity, and another obvious slip on the moon base meeting where the photographer clearly moves in Earth and not moon gravity. On the other hand the mind blowing scenes with sitting and running crew in the rotating ring onboard Discovery (considering it was from 1968) more than compensates for those mistakes. :smile:
 
  • #125
DaveC426913 said:
There's the rub.

The first film is famous for its technical accuracy.
You are ignoring their magnetic shoes.
 
  • #126
Don't forget that in the future, your are also going to FTL communications across the universe. So of course you've got quantum entangled particles that are spilt so they can transmit data instantly.

Not scifi, but honorable mention to Anderson Consulting (now accenture) for the TV advertisements promising a "Quantum" Leap in technology by using their services.
 
  • #127
Imager said:
"Quantum" Leap
That's been so wrongly used in so many contexts that surely it is now an acceptable anti-meaning? To whit, lay people think it means a huge leap, and just look baffled if you try and explain why it is anything but!
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Imager and DaveC426913
  • #128
Melbourne Guy said:
That's been so wrongly used in so many contexts that surely it is now an acceptable anti-meaning? To whit, lay people think it means a huge leap, and just look baffled if you try and explain why it is anything but!

Correct, I tried to explain one time without success.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
18
Views
3K
Replies
44
Views
13K
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
6K
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
4K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
7K