In Science Fiction the 'Issue of finding scientific faults'

[rizon72]

If one thinks about the size and scope of something like Ringworld, it is a wonder of construction and technology.

 

There were those, such as engineering students, who found faults in the concept of a the ringworld in that it 'not being in orbit around the sun' that it would drift and smash into the star.

There is a problem here with the engineering students. They are using our current abilities and understanding of technology. If you went back to the Roman Empire, and described a 100 story skyscraper to them, they would probably say the same thing. It would be impossible to build and keep upright without it crashing into the ground due to gravity.

 

Just like we have overcome buildings falling down with technology, so to would a highly advanced civilization overcome the drifting problem.

[Aonghus]

Arthur C. Clarke, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

[Thor.]

check out his Quantum mechanics theory, brains and many weird things in this end of the universe prediction.

 

http://www.space.com/22774-doomsday-universe-fate-depends-on-mass-of-tiny-particle.html

quote

 

:blink:

 

 

Disembodied brains

If the universe is not doomed by the top quark, it could face an even more bizarre fate — one dominated by so-called Boltzmann Brains.

In principle, a room full of monkeys randomly hitting keys on typewriters could eventually come up with the complete works of Shakespeare. Indeed, any random event, no matter how unlikely, could happen, given enough time.

One extraordinarily unlikely possibility is that anyone or everyone might have randomly come into existence with a complete set of memories no more than a moment ago from a cluster of atoms — an idea suggested by Austrian physicist Ludwig Boltzmann. One might even propose all intelligent minds in the universe are disembodied brains with complete sets of memories that randomly fluctuated out of chaos rather than evolving conventionally from a relatively orderly past. If everyone's minds are suspect, one might never be able to tell whether one's model of the universe is viable or not.

Edited September 18, 2013 by Thor.

[Hyacathusarullistad]

For me, science fiction is a tool that allows humankind to review and critique their own culture by extrapolating its currently predominant ideals to a point where it's more comfortable to challenge or examine them.

 

For example. Star Trek, what many consider to be the quintessential science fiction franchise, was created on the cusp of a wave of civil rights struggles as well as a powerful anti-war movement made all the more public by the relative affordability of television. Equality, peace, and responsible government were on everyone's mind, and great strides towards all three were being made. All in all, the 60s were a time of hope, optimism, and prosperity. And Star Trek reflects that - a group of people from all cultures and walks of life, including two people from cultures the US had very recently (and still currently were) at odds with, served together without acknowledgement of their differences on a crew of people dedicated to making new friends, spreading the peace of a benevolent, compassionate government, and exploring "the final frontier".

 

Today is very different. The world is a much smaller place in 2013. The crises of the mid 2000s have led to a society of pessimism, uncertainty and even fear. People are more and more isolated from each other in any meaningful way due to the rise of social media and the internet, which allow them to socialise on their own terms rather than confront people and ideas in the real world that might challenge their world view. All our media reflects this, of course, but science fiction in particular has taken these fears and developing flaws of humanity to their extreme - post-apocalyptic dystopian societies created by our mismanagement of our circumstances resulting in a world where even our day to day lives are a constant struggle, never mind the social and political landscape.

[BriannaElisabeth]

I'm a huge science fiction and fantasy fan, and here's my take on it:
Science fiction and fantasy are, essentially, the same genre. They both create a world that has rules different from ours. These rules govern how magic works for Fantasy, and how 'Science' works in Scifi. The reader should suspend their disbelief for the initial set up of the rules, as long as they agree with each other and make sense within the context of the book. The most important thing in both Scifi and Fantasy is that the reader does not question the rules, and that the author never breaks them. You don't question why Magic works in Harry Potter - it just does, because those are the rules. But if, halfway through the series, J.K. Rowling decided that Magic worked differently, it would invalidate the previous books to an extent. Once the author breaks their own rules, the book is appropriately subject to questioning and readers looking for faults.
In short, I find it ridiculous to question why things are the way they are in a science fiction, as long as there are solid rules.

Edited September 28, 2013 by BriannaElisabeth

[Hardwaremaster]

[Thor.]

Did Cern just do warp drive, notice the spelling error.

 

 

Remember they had the capability to make mini black holes,

Edited October 6, 2013 by Thor.

[matortheeternal]

I've been reading a very interesting book about Science Fiction:

 

Worlds Apart: Narratology of Science Fiction by Carl D. Malmgren

 

So, I'm going to drop a knowledge bomb here. You've been warned.

 

========================================================================

 

 

 

 

Science Fiction is a writing style specifically defined as having a scientific basis. Science fiction can be broken into several types:

 

 

Gadget SF: Involves the introduction of some new technology/gadget. Deals with the relationship between Self vs. Technology.

 

Alien Encounter SF: Involves the introduction/existence of some alien (here meaning different, not necessarily extraterrestrial) actant. Deals with Self vs. Other and what it means to be human.

 

Alternate Society SF: Involves some sort of alternate society, e.g. a utopia, dystopia, or anything in between. Deals with Self vs. Society.

 

Alternate World SF: Involves some sort of alternate world, and the relationship between the human characters and this world. Deals with Self vs. Environment. E.g. Larry Niven's Ringworld.

 

Science Fantasy: Could involve a range of world components. E.g. Natural Law, Scientific Theory, Scientific Fact, Historical Fact, or Natural Actant. Novels of this SF Type are harder to deal with, they usually deal with epistemology and ontology. Novels of this SF Type are usually not considered "Science Fiction", as they often violate the notion that SF is grounded in scientific epistemology. It's an unstable "hybrid" form of Science Fiction and Fantasy.

 

 

What all types of science fiction have in common is they provide the reader with a means to deal with the world and circumstances presented in the novel in terms of the world/circumstances of today. Basically, the reader is tasked with taking the aspects of estrangement and bringing them to a certain degree of understanding by grounding them in an anthropocentric framework.

 

Science Fiction is not Fantasy. Science Fiction involves taking the universe as we understand it today and introducing certain scientifically plausible novums to it, and then investigating them from a grounded scientific viewpoint. Fantasy explicitly involves straying from the logical structure of science to introduce novums or entirely different universes that need not follow scientific law, and can defy scientific fact, historical fact, scientific theory, etc. Fantasy is not created with the goal of having the reader ground the story in an anthropocentric framework via scientific extrapolation or speculation.

 

Science Fiction has evolved to adapt common novums but not focus on them. E.g. warp drives in interstellar spaceships. This allows science fiction authors to introduce their novums to a future society where other novums may already be present, giving a more realistic backdrop for their story to play out. This is where many people become confused. Though these novums are not specifically discussed in the novel, the author operates under the assumption that the reader is acquainted with them from other works of Science Fiction, and leaves them in the background.

 

 

 

 

I don't think it matters how intelligent a race is, the laws of physics still apply. I'm not familiar with the book so can't comment on it, however it does sadden me when people attack a work of science fiction over its lack of science fact. Popular sci-fi like Star Trek and Star Wars are full of things that make little sense, does that make them any less enjoyable? not in the slightest. George Lucas was influenced by a 70's TV show called Space 1999, a show in which the science was so bad even non scientific people could see the issues, it didn't stop people suspending their disbelief and enjoying it.

In order to be science fiction you have to deal with things scientifically. Some Science Fiction is of higher quality than others (in terms of being a work of Science Fiction) because they deal with things scientifically and rigorously.

 

Many "popular" works of "Science Fiction", aren't exactly Science Fiction, I feel. They don't directly deal with a novum of estrangement or involve the reader in the act of grounding the novel in an anthropocentric framework. They're fantastical stories about futures with novums that could be considered "scientific" in nature (technologies), but that aren't a central part of the story. But it's hard to discuss this sort of stuff and draw lines in the sand. There's extrapolative SF and speculative SF, soft SF and hard SF, space operas and science fantasy. Where one ends and the other begins is always up to debate, but we can still make some clear distinctions.

 

The layman often thinks science fiction means "any work of fiction that involves technology and the future". This is false. Novels that do not deal with an estranging novum from a scientific viewpoint are usually not science fiction. E.g. Star Wars is a Space Opera, soft SF, and involves certain "fantasy elements". It'd be best considered Science Fantasy - the hybrid form.

 

 

 

When I was much younger, in the late 1970s, I read Larry Niven's novel of the Ringworld about a rigid ringworld structure orbiting a sun. There were those, such as engineering students, who found faults in the concept of a the ringworld in that it 'not being in orbit around the sun' that it would drift and smash into the star.

 

You didn't really present the Ringworld very well. Larry Niven's Ringworld is a 600 million mile circumference ring encircling a star, rotating around that star (so a point on the ring is "orbiting" the star).^[source]

 

Lets get into some basic physics. We have a ring shaped object rotating. That creates a "centripetal" force. For those of you who don't know basic physics or who don't remember centripetal force, I'll explain this for you.

 

Newton's first law of motion states:

When viewed in an inertial reference frame, an object either is at rest or moves at a constant velocity, unless acted upon by an external force.

 

Let's say you have a ball on a string, and you swing this ball around your hand. In order to keep this ball moving in a circle you have to exert a force on the string to pull the ball inward, accelerating it towards your hand continuously through tension in the string. If you let go of the string the ball will move in a straight line tangential to the circle from where it was released.

 

Now let's say you take an ant and put it on the ball on the side of the ball closest to your hand. The ant would feel a force pushing it into the ball (because it has to be accelerated towards your hand as well). This is what we would call the Centripetal Force.

 

Let's take the ball and smoosh it out. Making it more and more ring shaped. No matter how ring shaped we make it, as long as it's structurally sound enough to not fall apart from the tension exerted by the string, it should continue to orbit your hand. For realism we'd actually have to start connecting more strings to it, because each part of the ring is being pulled towards the star at the center of its orbit.

 

Larry Niven's Ringworld has "artificial" gravity created by the ring's rotation (remember the ant?). Being approximately at the radius of Earth's orbit, the gravitational attraction between the Ringworld and the star at the center of its gravitational system isn't going to be large enough to rip the Ringworld apart. Gravity is a very weak force, and we're dealing with a distance of 93 million miles (radius of Earth's orbit), the gravitational force per unit area of the ring will be small, and the rotation will further negate tensile stresses.

 

If there really was a scientific flaw in Ringworld, I have yet to see it. Please link a source.

 

 

For me, science fiction is a tool that allows humankind to review and critique their own culture by extrapolating its currently predominant ideals to a point where it's more comfortable to challenge or examine them.

 

Science Fiction is a fantastic tool for examining relationships in our world. From Self vs. Other to Self vs. Environment, Science Fiction offers an effective narratological structure to examine ourselves and the world around us.

[Thor.]

Star trek science is basically science now, and was actually inspired by the actual equation that made the alcubierre warp drive possible.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive

One of my all time favourite science breakthroughs :thumbsup: .

Edited October 7, 2013 by Thor.

[matortheeternal]

Star trek science is basically science now, and was actually inspired by the actual equation that made the alcubierre warp drive possible.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive

One of my all time favourite science breakthroughs :thumbsup: .

 

Yes, a lot of scientific novums that were created back in 60s-90s are present today. That doesn't say anything about the quality of the fiction however, if that is what you were trying to imply.

 

The Alcubierre Warp Drive is a hypothetical method of propulsion using space-time distortion to propel a craft. It is not "possible", it is "hypothetically possible". There are numerous flaws with the idea, including the massive energy requirements and, even more importantly, how the hell you're going to apply the energy in front of/behind the craft. That would require the energy to go faster than the speed of light, and you can't make another Warp Drive to resolve this (obviously).

 

There's also the issue of Space-time fluctuations potentially damaging the craft. You're distorting the very fabric of reality, so even the slightest miscalculation could cause gravity waves to rip your ship apart. That's not very feasible.

 

Just saying. The Alcubierre Warp Drive is awesome and all, but you should focus on plasma/nuclear propulsion in terms of what will actually be worth discussing within the next 5 centuries or so.