How about compiling a list of science myths in science fiction and other genres. The first think that comes to mind her for me are ICBM that travel all the way to their targets without releasing their warheads. For example, one episode of CBS's new Twilight Zone had a woman with a stop watch that could stop time encounter a full nuclear missile hovering inches from the ground soon after she stops time.
-
Re: Science myths in science fiction, etc
Tue, June 12, 2007 - 8:28 AMOoh, nuclear missiles ...
... a lot of video science fiction both over- and underestimates the effects of nuclear detonations. They tend to assume that the damage radius is a radius in which everything is destroyed and everyone killed; they also don't grasp the tremendous advantage that almost _any_ hard cover provides in surviving such an event. At the same time, when it's necessary to save the lives of important characters, they can survive ridiculously close to the detonation, or even outrace the thermal flash (!!!) if necessary.
And let's not get started on radiation. Everyone (!) dead in the whole fallout zone, or worse still mutated with comic-book powers ... -
-
Re: Science myths in science fiction, etc
Fri, June 22, 2007 - 6:34 AMwell, star trek is full of some that i notice.
but you'd have to be pretty esotericto know it most of the time...
for instance the transporter beam system couldn't work like that, it would have to look
more like "stargate."
or dilithium. A serious prop device, really, a form of matter that spatially hyperdimensional?
it would have to be almost near the density of a singularity.
the warp nacelles. There'd have to be a wormtunnel traveling down the length of the warp engine,
so the engines would have to be hollow tubes.
ps
my new tribe for designing space ships.
tribes.tribe.net/thinkstarship
-
-
Re: Science myths in science fiction, etc
Fri, June 22, 2007 - 6:37 AMoh, i just thought of a real common one. time dilation errors. say you have a time control watch that lets
you slow time to half (subjectively, you experience 1 minute for every real 2) . problem;
now the whole universe is twice as cold as it was relative to you. And you are flaming hot. And matter is half
as resistant. etc. -
-
Re: Science myths in science fiction, etc
Fri, June 22, 2007 - 7:10 AMSimilarly, most science fiction TV writers seem to know nothing about time dilation. Often they assume that one would always need cryonic suspension for very long space flights. I recall an SF show where the travelers arrive at a planet 22 light-years from Earth in 22 years time. Though they were traveling very close to the speed of light, they were put into suspended animation anyway. At that speed there should be significant enough time dilation so that the 22 years would seem like a few weeks to the travelers.
-
-
Re: Science myths in science fiction, etc
Sun, July 8, 2007 - 12:05 PMOr what about the view (presented in certain Star Trek episodes) that a spaceship needs to keep its propulsion on continuously in order to stay in orbit of a planet? Of course in real life, propulsion is mainly used to get a ship or satellite into orbit. Once in orbit, propulsion is no longer needed unless it's to change the orbit or orientation of the orbitting craft.
-
-
Re: Science myths in science fiction, etc
Sun, July 8, 2007 - 4:08 PMWhen fuel is cheaper than a good orbital calculator, I guess...
-
-
Re: Science myths in science fiction, etc
Sat, July 14, 2007 - 9:37 AMHow about the myth that carbon dating can be used to measure the age of objects that are millions of years old? As I understand it, carbon dating can only go back to about 50,000 years. In a somewhat similar area, I believe it was Star Trek: Enterprise that introduced something called quantum dating. Quantum dating apparently can measure the absolute age of an object. I don't think that's possible, so the question of the moment for me is is that possible?
-
-
Re: Science myths in science fiction, etc
Sun, July 15, 2007 - 11:40 AMWe can't forget about the nebula myth: That nebulae are dark and murky space clouds that look similar to fogs if you were to go through one. But in real life, the particles that constitute a nebula are so small and so far apart from each other that the interior of a nebula would look like regular empty space. Only when you're light-years away, say, will the combined view of all those thinly-spread particles look like a space cloud.
-
Re: Science myths in science fiction, etc
Mon, July 16, 2007 - 2:13 PM"Quantum dating apparently can measure the absolute age of an object. I don't think that's possible, so the question of the moment for me is is that possible?"
I'm more forgiving if they just make shit up, than if they misuse existing knowledge. We did a short movie with a person being in some sort of suspended animation. Didn't want to use cryogenics or anything like that, because of, well, freezer burn, etc. Instead, we just called it "quantum suspension" and left it at that. Never really delved into what "quantum suspension" WAS, but it wasn't that important -- just didn't want to contradict something that was already known.
-
-
-
Re: Science myths in science fiction, etc
Mon, July 16, 2007 - 2:06 PMRefreshingly, Battlestar Galactica has done better in this regard than any I've seen. Second-best would be Babylon 5, but a lot of that is how well the technology allowed them to manifest the same idea.
-
-
-
-
Re: Science myths in science fiction, etc
Mon, July 16, 2007 - 2:22 PMI guess a sort of "myth" I run across is when I see obvious disjoints in human nature. When I see a future scenario where everybody is all kind and forgiving and "Oh, humans have evolved past conflict and war," it kinda drives me a little nuts because that just seems so counter to what people are really like.
I do let Kurt Vonnegut get away with that, though, because he doesn't try to bullshit me -- if he needs a society where everybody turns into a seal, he just decides that's the way it is. Same with Ray Bradbury -- I forgive him practically everything. -
-
Re: Science myths in science fiction, etc
Wed, July 18, 2007 - 6:56 AMOf course those "kind and forgiving" future humans aren't in alll science fiction. On Babylon 5, for example, there are still people who'll never forgive the Minbari Federation for their nearly successful attempt to exterminate the human race. On the other hand, "kind and forgiving" future humans might be a matter of survival. I mean, here in the primitivve 21st century, our violent tendancies could (theoretically) destroy us and all life on Earth due to the current weapons technology. Therefore, the people of the future could have even more advanced weapon technology. And if they maintained violent tendencies while in possession of such advanced weapons, They'd very likely destroy themselves. Once they've destroyed themselves, then you'd have no story (unless you want to focus on alien species from there on). -
-
Re: Science myths in science fiction, etc
Wed, July 18, 2007 - 8:49 AM"Of course those "kind and forgiving" future humans aren't in all science fiction."
Of course not.
Did I mention how often it seems that with a peaceful no-war-no-disease future, in those same scenarios, mankind ALSO seems to acquire a penchant for pastel robes and androgynous features? Yeah, another fine recurring myth.
"Once they've destroyed themselves, then you'd have no story (unless you want to focus on alien species from there on)."
Oh, many authors have written about the destruction of the human race. I mean, "A Canticle for Liebowitz," for pete's sake! -
-
Re: Science myths in science fiction, etc
Thu, May 29, 2008 - 6:57 AMI think one of the WORST science myths perpetuated by the unscientific screenwriters of Hollywood is the belief that comets shoot across the sky like meteors. Of course if that were possible, comets would be traveling faster than the speed of light which -- as we all know -- is impossible (under normal circumstances).
-
-
-