I thought it might be a good thread to have around where authors can discuss whether the technical/scientific aspects of their work is credible. For example, there are numerous space opera type novels out there, but would an educated scientific mind want to read it? Attracting a computer geek is much different than attracting an artist or, in turn, attracting an astronomer or a physicist. The question is, as a writer, do we want to push the envelope or toss it in the fire?

Faster Than Light (FTL) travel is bogged down with speculation. Speculation, although it may begin as a fantasy, may lead to revisions or corollaries in certain laws of physics. For instance, E=MC2 may only be valid in areas of the universe where light exists. Consider dark matter/energy.


Dark matter and dark energy make up over 95% of the universe. There are many speculations about how it works, but my own research in this area suggests that this combination, although very different from antimatter, would reverse the laws of physics as we know it. Like a sugar maple produces plentiful amounts of sap, dark matter may similarly produce the primary particles and accelerations of light matter and energy. My own work suggests this would result in heat and possibly could produce the holy grail we look for in positronium.


In a novel I've written about time travel, the time travel process itself involves a junction between the flow of dark matter/energy. The byproduct is the positronium that rapidly annihilates itself to generate Hawking Energy. This process, per my speculation, is another explanation of why black holes are black.

So here's a thread to talk about stuff like this so there's a better chance nobody is laughing at our work in some reading room unknown. I know I spare few feelings toward visual artists who create graphics with spaceships that won't fly at all, let alone FTL.