10 Myths about Space Travel that make SF better

[ivanj]

I have read the article from which the list is derived and at least two things are apparent.

First and foremost, we should separate the stupid effects that are there for cinematic and TV effect from those that just might be possible with some being more possible than others.

My second point there is not one practical, get your hands dirty, engineer objecting to the things that are left, which leaves just scientists that are objecting.

Now the question becomes what are those scientists objecting too? Are they just repeating dogma learned from others that were just repeating dogma learned from others etc.? How do they know what they are objecting too won't work - have they tried or even thought about it without their dogma getting in the way?

In the past there were a lot of ideas about how the universe worked. Eventually Newton put together a working model - it wasn't complete but it could be used and was proved to be accurate enough and everyone said this is the bees knees. Then along came Einstein, he added to the work of Newton but he had a blind spot, at a young age he had decided that the speed of light was constant despite the Mickelson Moreley experiment showing otherwise. Now everyone said the work of Einstein was the bees knees.

Newton didn't have the complete answer and you can be sure that Einstein didn't. Most scientists still see the work of Einstein as the bees knees and woe betide anyone that even hints there might be imperfections in it.

So we end up with schools and universities teaching the there is nothing beyond Einstein and most scientists accept that as fact. Just witness the plethora of weird and wonderful particles posited to get round the Einstein restrictions and keep the established scientific community happy.

As far as I can see the scientific community needs to accept that the work of Einstein, like the work of Newton, is just a step along the way and they need to stop navel gazing and start looking outward, stop saying it can't work and saying how could we make it work.

I was born at the very tail end of the age when people tried things for the sake of trying - some things worked, others didn't. If it didn't you tried again but in a slightly different way. I remember telling my grandfather that the teacher had said that something wouldn't work - I forget exactly what - and his reply, have you tried? This is the attitude we need to get back to today, the scientists need to try things rather than saying, 'the theory says no'.

Rant over and as an aside we see the same in SF today with most books of the last few years being inward looking, doom and gloom rather than outward looking and hopeful.

[Steven L Jordan]

First and foremost, we should separate the stupid effects that are there for cinematic and TV effect from those that just might be possible with some being more possible than others.

Well, you should do just that, so we have something to discuss!

[JunkMonkey]

Then along came Einstein, he added to the work of Newton but he had a blind spot, at a young age he had decided that the speed of light was constant despite the Mickelson Moreley experiment showing otherwise. Now everyone said the work of Einstein was the bees knees.

Hmmm. I thought (and I will admit I am no expert) that the null result of the Michelson–Morley experiment (an attempt to measure/prove the then theoretical assumption that light travelled through a medium called 'aether') was one of the stepping stone towards Einstein's work.

[Asimovking]

I have read the article from which the list is derived and at least two things are apparent.

First and foremost, we should separate the stupid effects that are there for cinematic and TV effect from those that just might be possible with some being more possible than others.

My second point there is not one practical, get your hands dirty, engineer objecting to the things that are left, which leaves just scientists that are objecting.

Now the question becomes what are those scientists objecting too? Are they just repeating dogma learned from others that were just repeating dogma learned from others etc.? How do they know what they are objecting too won't work - have they tried or even thought about it without their dogma getting in the way?

In the past there were a lot of ideas about how the universe worked. Eventually Newton put together a working model - it wasn't complete but it could be used and was proved to be accurate enough and everyone said this is the bees knees. Then along came Einstein, he added to the work of Newton but he had a blind spot, at a young age he had decided that the speed of light was constant despite the Mickelson Moreley experiment showing otherwise. Now everyone said the work of Einstein was the bees knees.

Newton didn't have the complete answer and you can be sure that Einstein didn't. Most scientists still see the work of Einstein as the bees knees and woe betide anyone that even hints there might be imperfections in it.

So we end up with schools and universities teaching the there is nothing beyond Einstein and most scientists accept that as fact. Just witness the plethora of weird and wonderful particles posited to get round the Einstein restrictions and keep the established scientific community happy.

As far as I can see the scientific community needs to accept that the work of Einstein, like the work of Newton, is just a step along the way and they need to stop navel gazing and start looking outward, stop saying it can't work and saying how could we make it work.

I was born at the very tail end of the age when people tried things for the sake of trying - some things worked, others didn't. If it didn't you tried again but in a slightly different way. I remember telling my grandfather that the teacher had said that something wouldn't work - I forget exactly what - and his reply, have you tried? This is the attitude we need to get back to today, the scientists need to try things rather than saying, 'the theory says no'.

Rant over and as an aside we see the same in SF today with most books of the last few years being inward looking, doom and gloom rather than outward looking and hopeful.

This lecture fits perfectly with what you're saying:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPgII...yer_detailpage

[Steven L Jordan]

How little confidence in the work of scientists... And how great the accomplishments of engineers... There seems to be. Do you really believe engineers create everything with no knowledge of scientific theory, tinkering with a few wires and screws Like gifted mavericks and giving us everything that scientists say can't be done? Do you see scientists as nothing more than local weathermen, guessing at the truth based on the popular social and political leanings of the day?

From people with an interest in SCIENCE fiction, that's surprising.

[Pennarin]

The Foundations' Mule scene's use of a handgun is debatable as a disintegrator. IIRC it ripped apart the person, the floor, the wall...through the use of a particle weapon? Asimov IIRC did not describe the weapon.

[Riothamus]

I prefer the gloom outlook.Humans will always abuse technology to nefarious ends and we would do wise not to rely so heavily on technology or science.

[Pennarin]

I prefer the gloom outlook.Humans will always abuse technology to nefarious ends and we would do wise not to rely so heavily on technology or science.

For your next post you have two options:
- Answer immediately using smoke signals morse code, or
- Wait a full month before answering me electronically

If you do these things I'll believe you do not already rely heavily on technology or science.

[Pennarin]

Well, I stand corrected.



P.S. Sounds about right for 8-bit. Madness I tell you!

[Rosie Oliver]

From the original list of myths at the start of this chain:

8. Cheap energy is readily available.

Actually when it comes down to it, cheap energy is readily available all round the Solar System... close to the Sun you have solar energy... rocky moons - collect the aggregated helium three from the solar with and use fusion power... gas giants - collect the helium three from the upper atmosphere and use fusion power [in fact some serious study has been done on this concept by the British Interplanetary Society with a view to getting free energy to Earth - they recommend using Uranus and Neptune as the sources]... active ice moons, use the underground water to derive energy in different ways... any place with winds (like Mars or Titan) use wind energy...

The main supply problem is getting protein for food... (water is also abundant if you know where to look for it). That needs some serious manufacturing facilities, along with mining (gas, liquid or solid).

[JunkMonkey]

From the original list of myths at the start of this chain:

8. Cheap energy is readily available.

What??? Is getting back on topic allowed in this forum? Why did no one tell me?

[Steven L Jordan]

From the original list of myths at the start of this chain:

8. Cheap energy is readily available.

What??? Is getting back on topic allowed in this forum? Why did no one tell me?

Cheeky, aren't they?

In reference to the list, their point about ray guns and other small objects needing enough power to level a building are valid: The likelihood that we'll design a small device that can hold that kind of power are remote. And the power needed to fly ships at the speeds and distances demonstrated in SF would require more than a nuclear pile driving them... not to mention the stellar-scale power needed to run an FTL system.

Hopefully systems with smaller needs could access almost unlimited publicly-available power (you notice how everything in the future runs on batteries?). But controlling huge amounts of power in tiny devices probably isn't going to happen without somehow tapping into the power sources of another dimension (much like Star Trek's technology is supposedly able to do with dilithium).

[Riothamus]

For your next post you have two options:
- Answer immediately using smoke signals morse code, or
- Wait a full month before answering me electronically

If you do these things I'll believe you do not already rely heavily on technology or science.

...You completely missed the point.

[Steven L Jordan]

I prefer the gloom outlook.Humans will always abuse technology to nefarious ends and we would do wise not to rely so heavily on technology or science.

I'm afraid that genie is already out of the bottle; in this overcrowded, overclocked, over-polluted world, we couldn't survive without the scientific advances we've already developed, and we don't have much future if we don't continue developing.

And I wouldn't say clocks, batteries, cellphones, windmills, heart valves or vaccines are used to "nefarious" ends...

[gainespost]

Ahhhh. But a windmill+heartvalve *could* be! ;->