Theoretically, can this be done? - Page 3 - Writers Forum

Jeff Colburn · 08-20-2007, 02:03 PM

There are so many scifi movies and stories that use "bad science" you'd think that publishers and producers never took a science class. The problem is that every time a movie/story is made that uses bad science, and people just roll their eyes, it brings down the entire genre field.

Stretching the imagination and taking us places we've never been, or even imagined, is the roll of genre fiction, but lets not throw science out the window in the process.

In the above story, it would be easier to establish a base on the Moon, or another planet in our solar system, than to have scientists find a way to split the Earth, hold that half together, do something to keep the core in place, invent artificial gravity, keep the atmosphere and ozone layer in place and keep the now off-center Earth in its present orbit (we need to stay where we are in relation to the Sun in order to survive). I mean, our best scientists can't even keep the Space Shuttle from blowing up or being damaged during launch, or probes from crashing into Mars.

Have Fun,
Jeff

playstation60 · 08-20-2007, 07:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff Colburn

There are so many scifi movies and stories that use "bad science" you'd think that publishers and producers never took a science class. The problem is that every time a movie/story is made that uses bad science, and people just roll their eyes, it brings down the entire genre field.

Stretching the imagination and taking is places we've never been, or even imagined, is the roll of genre fiction, but lets not throw science out the window in the process.

I disagree. It is the use of "bad" science that pushes our boarders of knowledge.

150 years ago it was scientific fact that flight was impossible. 50 years ago it was poor science fiction to think of space flight. 30 years it was inconceivable that there'd be a network available for the common man to talk and interact with literally BILLIONS of people all over the world.

Our understanding of science is incomplete. Our understanding of science will ALWAYS be incomplete. Sometimes science and conventional thought needs to be thrown out the window. THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX.

Hodge · 08-20-2007, 07:15 PM

150 years ago it was not scientific fact that flight was impossible. Hot air balloons had already been created. And space flight 50 years ago? It'd already happened, and it was entirely conceivable. The internet? The precursor to the internet already existed 30 years ago, and before then it hadn't even been thought of (but I'm sure it would have been thought of as a groundbreaking idea).

Impossibilities are rarely embraced as scientific fact. Even the light speed barrier isn't -- scientists attempt to break it all the time, despite the fact that Einstein's General Relativity has proven impenetrable so far.

The use of bad science merely delays the good science. And good science is creative science.

Jeff Colburn · 08-20-2007, 08:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by playstation60

150 years ago it was scientific fact that flight was impossible. 50 years ago it was poor science fiction to think of space flight.

Scientists now believe that the drawings on the Nazca Plains, which were made as early as 200 BCE, were created so that the Nazca royalty could see them from the air. Scientists believe that the ancient Nazca people had hot air balloons, with the balloons made from their fabric, which had a very tight weave. They have even recreated these hot air balloons which can lift a person with no problem.

Forty nine years ago, when I was about 2 years old, I remember sitting on my Dad's shoulders watching Sputnik go across the night sky.

I have no problem with pushing science beyond its current, or perceived, limits but throwing basic physics out the window with no good reason is just bad writing.

Have Fun,
Jeff

Mike C · 08-21-2007, 01:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff Colburn

throwing basic physics out the window with no good reason is just bad writing.

Have Fun,
Jeff

True, but...

A story documenting how the earth is devastated would be tedious, even if scientifically plausible. Because it ain't a story. Science or not, it's not a story.

The real story is the people who survive. Start the story post-disaster - that's where the story is.

lin · 08-21-2007, 01:58 AM

Quote:

Scientists believe that the ancient Nazca people had hot air balloons, with the balloons made from their fabric, which had a very tight weave.

What scientists? That is totally absurd. And the "recreated it" is too funny. There is no theory so fucked-up that you can't recreate it post hoc.

Somebody finally came up with something loopier than alien space craft to explain Nazca. Millions of man hours put into scraping something out so somebody can go up in a ballon and look at it. Hilarious.

Jeff Colburn · 08-21-2007, 02:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lin

What scientists? That is totally absurd. And the "recreated it" is too funny. There is no theory so fucked-up that you can't recreate it post hoc.

Somebody finally came up with something loopier than alien space craft to explain Nazca. Millions of man hours put into scraping something out so somebody can go up in a balloon and look at it. Hilarious.

Just about as crazy as thousands of people spending over twenty years building a giant pyramid to stick a dead pharaoh into, and doing it over and over again for one pharaoh after another.

The scientists were in a show on History or Discovery channel a few years ago. They made a hot air balloon (much smaller than what you see today) out of the fabric I mentioned and flew around in the thing just fine.

Have Fun,
Jeff

jamesdemann · 08-21-2007, 03:46 AM

either way you are getting away from the point that the bloke was trying to make in the first place, no matter how long ago be it 50 30 or 500 years, at some point it was deemed impossible. Just look at how many people believed the world was flat....

Mike C · 08-21-2007, 05:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff Colburn

The scientists were in a show on History or Discovery channel a few years ago. They made a hot air balloon (much smaller than what you see today) out of the fabric I mentioned and flew around in the thing just fine.

I think the point lin made was that anything can be proved after the fact. We know how to make balloons, therefore we make a balloon to fit the theory.

'Scientists' regularly prove how easy or impossible it was to build Stonehenge, for example. They've proved it's impossible for a bumble-bee to fly. They 'proved' that the ancient egyptians used electricity based on some amphora found with some acidic substance and lead inside - what more proof do we need that they invented the lead-acid battery?

Big difference between theoretical balloons and pyramids. The pyramids are there, they exist, their construction is documented and their use is evident. They're just like saxon barrows, but on a grander scale.

My theory is that the Princes of Nacza used them as landmarks when touring the area in electric powered airships made of butterfly wings held together with fairy-spit.

WriterDude · 08-21-2007, 06:24 AM

As for the nazca lines, it is common belief among a lot of scientists (most of them, even) that they were created so big so they can be seen from the air. It might be from air balloons, UFO's, primitive airplanes or whatever, but either way, that one's fact. One big proof is because you simply can't see the big picture (so to say) from the ground, and there aren't many mountains around. Watching them from the sky is the only option.

As for "bad science" dragging the whole sci-fi genre down, whatever happened to "It's just a story"? If it's a great story, I read it. Besides, do you think Star Wars brings down the entire sci-fi genre just because it's not realistic?

Besides, I think it was Jules Verne who wrote a story based in the distant future. I might be wrong here, but anyway. He wrote about a city where people were transported from one place to the other vertically in a metal box, a conveyor (spelling?) belt transported people horizontally, big metal boxes transported people across the sky and so on. It was pure sci-fi back then, and no one actually believed it. Today we know the "boxes" as elevators, escalators, rolling sidewalks like in the airports, airplanes, and so on. He even had some sort of computers. It was pure sci-fi back then, but more or less all of it is reality now.

And think about Star Trek. It's just bad sci-fi, but a lot of it have inspired scientists to develop actual technology. If I may guide you to this page: HSV Technologies Inc. you'll see they are working on a laser weapon that works a lot like a phaser, based directly on Star Trek.

This link The Science of Star Trek / Fictional technology has long been the inspiration for real-life scientists also talks about Star Trek technology like teleportation, warp engines and so on being researched in real life by real scientists.

My point is what's sci-fi now can be reality in a few years. A hundred, two hundred years, yes, but that's a short time overral.

Hodge · 08-21-2007, 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike C

I think the point lin made was that anything can be proved after the fact. We know how to make balloons, therefore we make a balloon to fit the theory.

'Scientists' regularly prove how easy or impossible it was to build Stonehenge, for example. They've proved it's impossible for a bumble-bee to fly. They 'proved' that the ancient egyptians used electricity based on some amphora found with some acidic substance and lead inside - what more proof do we need that they invented the lead-acid battery?

Big difference between theoretical balloons and pyramids. The pyramids are there, they exist, their construction is documented and their use is evident. They're just like saxon barrows, but on a grander scale.

My theory is that the Princes of Nacza used them as landmarks when touring the area in electric powered airships made of butterfly wings held together with fairy-spit.

The ancient batteries were used for gilding and produced only a small electrical charge (they weren't Egyptian, either, they were found in present day Iraq and are still in the Baghdad museum -- pity it's closed indefinitely, now). You can't prove something is impossible when you've already proven it possible, nor can you prove something impossible that plainly exists. Stonehenge, for example, has always been acknowledged as possible because it's kinda there -- the debate is over how advanced the builders were and how they built it, not whether they could or not.

That balloon explanation for the Nazca lines would be a hypothesis. I've never heard of it (last I heard they looked at the lines from the tops of hills or mountains), though.

lin · 08-21-2007, 10:58 PM

My theory is that they were done in order to do complicated dances of forty foot long stilts. I have made forty foot stilts and used them, so I guess that proves me right and them wrong.

ClancyBoy · 08-21-2007, 11:54 PM

No one has disproven the ancient astronauts theory, so I'm gonna stick with that.

It was on TeeVee, and TeeVee never lied to me yet.

Actually it was on TLC, right after their groundbreaking documentary on lingerie.

The Backward OX · 08-27-2007, 07:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jamesdemann

either way you are getting away from the point that the bloke was trying to make in the first place, no matter how long ago be it 50 30 or 500 years, at some point it was deemed impossible. Just look at how many people believed the world was flat....

Isn't it?

The Backward OX · 08-27-2007, 07:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by valeca

That was my point. It doesn't have to be 'believable' in our reality to work--it depends on what he's writing, how it's approached, and if it makes sense within the context of the story. Time travel and inter-stellar gallivanting aren't possible, either, and yet, we see them in stories all the time.

Time travel isn't possible?

Didn't Carl Sagan postulate something about worm holes?

And UFO's - there are some who believe they have come from our future. nb Hodge - some, not all.