Science of Sci-fi

Pepe LeFrits

Originally posted by ixoy
Umm Stargate is generally meeting civilizations that were raised from human stock so the difference in civilization is only a couple of thousand years. And thus they have some several hundred years behind us and others where their civilization never had a dark age (e.g. the Tollan) and are hundreds of years ahead of us. There are very few civilizations not from human stock and those that are are very far advanced!

Human. Asgard. Goa'uld. Nox. Foothold Aliens. Serrakin. Re'tu. Reole.

Most of these are at a level quite similar (technologically or intelligence wise) to eachother. Which is amazing considering it'd take millions of years for each of them to develop.

Pepe LeFrits

Originally posted by k.oriordan
Like when Crichton (the lead character) does a Data-style jump through space from one ship to the other without a spacesuit and survives (Apart from having to have his face and stuff regenerated. I don't know maybe that is possible, would love if someone explained it to me.)

haha, I believe in that case what would happen in that case is that all his veins and arteries would push out to the surface of his body and explode (along with his eyes), while his body at the same time instantly freezes. That'd be some regeneration job.

Oh, and apparently the linings of the nose, throat and rectum also probably get pulled out through their relative orifices, while the entire torso will swell up (but probably not burst). Sweet.

ixoy

Originally posted by kaids
Human. Asgard. Goa'uld. Nox. Foothold Aliens. Serrakin. Re'tu. Reole.

Most of these are at a level quite similar (technologically or intelligence wise) to eachother. Which is amazing considering it'd take millions of years for each of them to develop.

Okay I'll take this as a challenge on a couple since you do know your SG-1:

* The Nox are far ahead of us. That was made abundantly clear in the episode of the same name. That's why they're up there hanging out with the Ancients. If I recall they made a point about their technology being so advanced that it would seem like magic to us.

* The Goa'uld don't count either because they are scavengers. Naturally they'd be at the same level (roughly) of other civilisations because they've plundered those civilisations to acquire technology (again a point stressed in the series).

* The Asgard are pretty far ahead of us - warp capabilities, for example, and cloning techniques. Since they were on the council with the Nox they are assumedly on a par and thus more advanced than might be readily apparent (energy sources, for example).

* 'Foothold' aliens and the Re'tu - we know too little about them to make a judgement.

All our own ships are scaveneged from the Goa'uld scanvegers themselves and shouldn't be seen as a merit of our own cultural or technological advancement. Unlike Trek, SG-1 has a much more believable sense of cultural and technological development - one of the many reasons I like it so much.

Pepe LeFrits

Originally posted by ixoy
Okay I'll take this as a challenge on a couple since you do know your SG-1:

* The Nox are far ahead of us. That was made abundantly clear in the episode of the same name. That's why they're up there hanging out with the Ancients. If I recall they made a point about their technology being so advanced that it would seem like magic to us.

* The Goa'uld don't count either because they are scavengers. Naturally they'd be at the same level (roughly) of other civilisations because they've plundered those civilisations to acquire technology (again a point stressed in the series).

* The Asgard are pretty far ahead of us - warp capabilities, for example, and cloning techniques. Since they were on the council with the Nox they are assumedly on a par and thus more advanced than might be readily apparent (energy sources, for example).

* 'Foothold' aliens and the Re'tu - we know too little about them to make a judgement.

All our own ships are scaveneged from the Goa'uld scanvegers themselves and shouldn't be seen as a merit of our own cultural or technological advancement. Unlike Trek, SG-1 has a much more believable sense of cultural and technological development - one of the many reasons I like it so much.

You're missing my point. Even if the Nox or Asgard are a few thousand years ahead of us technologically, that's still only a drop in the ocean time-wise. A load of races evolve over a period of a few million years and all end up travelling among the stars at the same time, within a few hundred/thousand years of each other technologically.

More 'realistically' would be for SG1 to find mostly species with an ape-like level of intelligence (unas and so on) and lower, and the remains of extinct civilisations (like the Ancients). Not very entertaining though

dictatorcat

You're missing my point. Even if the Nox or Asgard are a few thousand years ahead of us technologically, that's still only a drop in the ocean time-wise. A load of races evolve over a period of a few million years and all end up travelling among the stars at the same time, within a few hundred/thousand years of each other technologically.

There are factors you're not considering. Civilizations may be classed into type 1, 2, and 3. A class 1 civilization uses all the resources of it's planet to harness energy to meet it's needs (we barely justify being in this category), class 2 ones use all the energy supplied by it's stars to fuel it's needs, and finally a class 3 one uses so many stars it practically consumes a whole galaxy. The problem with this model is that presumably most civilizations would become extinct before the end of being a class 1 due to the time scales involved, and the differences between the classes of civilization would also be huge, as in SG1 where some control galaxies while some have even ascended beyond our comprehension. Conversly a primitive intelligence would not remain so for long, look at us, we've gotten as far as we have in just 100,000 years or less - nothing in geological time. The Asguard are a type 3 civilization, pretty much as far as it can go, they control a whole seperate galaxy as did the Ancients who are not extinct. The whole point of the class system is that it's steps a civilization need to reach so as not to become extinct due to exploding stars etc. Bit disjointed but hopefully i've made my point.

simu

Good sci-fi should explain the science it uses whether that be in terms of technology or the biology of aliens or whatever. It should also apply the rules it creates for itself in a consistent manner. If it's set in this universe, the rules of our universe should apply along with whatever new scientific discoveries are made in the fictional future. For example, if the laws of thermodynamics don't work anymore, there should be some explanation why not! If it's set in another universe, this universe should also be consistent internally.

Some sci-fi writer prefer to deal with more philosophical themes in their works - in such a case, I don't mind a lack of detail about scientific principles involved as long as there aren't errors that show the writer hasn't bothered thinking something through. In brief, I'm prepared to accept a certain level of technobabble given that any sufficiently advanced technology would appear as magic to us poor humans of the 21st century!

Some sci-fi, I still like despite obvious flaws in the science as it has more good than bad qualities overall. Star Trek TNG would be a good example - I share the attitude of Laurence M. Krauss (who wrote "The Physics of Star Trek" - a book on the flaws in ST physics of all things) - He pokes fun at the mistakes but is still fond of the show.

I'm also lenient with older sci-fi that is outdated due to scientific developments in our own reality - there's a lot more to the sci-fi genre than simply trying to predict the future exactly.

OmeGar

To me it comes down to how well it is written. I don't mind if the story ignores science, or self consistancy, As long as it has good characters.

However if a story ignores it own science in order to get around a problem in the story, then it's just bad writing.

If they remain self consistant that is brilliant. This can often add to it, as for awhile you wonder is there a solution.

anyway. the story is important.

Stark

I think His Dark Materials trilogy(I consider it a fantasy/sci-fi hybrid as most of the ideas are possible if highly unlikely) and the Hyperion books are great examples of storyline benefiting from consistent science within the books, even if the science is a very theoretical long-shot.

It's one of the reasons I prefer sci-fi to fantasy. Fantasy writers just have too much freedom.

echomadman

I'm just wondering if anyone else finds well written and accurate science important in Sci-Fi.

Not being a qualified scientist, but being a bit of a dilettante I finf that glaring inaccuracies bug me, but on teh whole if the narrative is good enough then i'm not too pushed.

Stephen Donaldsons Gap Series was quite well written without screwing around with the laws of space-time too much, and it had non-humanoid aliens.

Cant think of any really bad ones right now though. As for the science of star trek... well, "gibberish, all gibberish" sums it up for me.

Sarky

And another thing: Didn't the last episode of Atar Trek TNG make a lot of use of "Warp 13"?

did they ever bother explaining that one away, especially after Voyager's Warp 10 shenanigan's?

ecksor

Yeah they did. See some posts on the star trek forum about it for all the boring details. I think STaN posted about it.

bizmark

Originally posted by Sarky
And another thing: Didn't the last episode of Atar Trek TNG make a lot of use of "Warp 13"?

did they ever bother explaining that one away, especially after Voyager's Warp 10 shenanigan's?

Easy to explane either they made a new Warp speed rateing system like they did from Tos to Tng or warp 13 is really a transwarp speed

Tree

Robert Reed writes lovely sci-fi with fair chunks of nice physics in it, for instance, as a planet gained mass it started to slow its rotation to conserve angular momentum, not blantantly explained for the world but physicsy ppl like me and my friends picked up on it and loved it. Nice solid science is quite nice to come across, too much made up jargon or over explainedness can be irritating. though i can live with out explanations too.

accept that it seems like magic! (still dont like fantasy novels though..:S)

As the great A.C.Clarke said something about sufficeintly advanced technology seeming like magic (dont ask me to quote anything other than king lear)

he's another great sciencey sci-fi writer!

Capt'n Midnight

Originally posted by Dataisgod
the original series had a silicon based lifeform called the horta i think that may be the episode you are referring too.

Devil in the Deep. Janus IV was the planet. Organism used fluorine based blood - bout the only thing that will dissolve silicone. (not silicon)


If the science is not plausible or following common rules then it's fantasy. eg: most of Voyager

Jules Verne - most of the stuff he wrote was based on real science. Anyone see the program where they discovered ancient french SCUBA - brass and all which was contemperary with 20,000 leagues under the sea ?

Helloconia series was ruined by the gradual increase in the amount of pure fantasy into the series.

WRT: Warp - I prefer the original system where each warp speed was light speed cubed
eg: warp 1=C, warp 2 = 8C, warp 3= 27C
so warp 10 would be 1000C and warp 30 =billionC would take you to the edge of the observable universe in 10 years.


RE: being in space without suit, was done in 2001 - the main trick being to exhale all air so you don't swell up - you can survive for maybe 30 seconds - the guys on the Diving forum might know more details on the effects of decompressions.