Bad science in fiction Hall of Shame

[Just Jim]

My question, and I brought this up in my story a while back, would be if an object the size of a monolith were made of the hardest and densest stuff in the known universe, would it actually be so massive in relation to it's size it would generate it's own gravitational field.

Being that Emiko Station is totally campy sci-fi, and I don't mind bending the rules of physics now and then... my answer was: Yes, the monoliths are so dense they exhibit a gravitational field...

But this creates a further paradox... if they're so massive and dense... how are they still on the surface, and not burrowing their way to the planet core??? How could anything made of Neutronium remain on the surface of a planet?

That question remains unanswered... hehehe

Edited March 1, 2018 by Just Jim

[insert_name]

10 minutes ago, Just Jim said:

But this creates a further paradox... if they're so massive and dense... how are they still on the surface, and not burrowing their way to the planet core??? How could anything made of Neutronium remain on the surface of a planet?

That question remains unanswered... hehehe

The same way that boulders can float in your story, negative gravioli particles.  also are there still floating monoliths or have they been fixed?

[Bill Phil]

56 minutes ago, phantom000 said:

In Stargate: SG-1 they talk about 'mining' neutronium. I would love to know how you 'mine' neutronium considering it is literally the hardest substance possible, i.e. that the laws of physics say it is impossible to have anything harder.

When did this happen in the series? 

I don't remember anything like that. Then again, my memory is awful. I do remember naquadah, naquariah, and trinium.

Oh... it may just be a substance made of neutrons, not necessarily neutron star material, especially considering that it shows up on some planets.

Also, is it really hard, or just really dense? Also, they could use non mechanical means of separating things, like laser drilling/cutting.

[Just Jim]

14 minutes ago, insert_name said:

...also are there still floating monoliths or have they been fixed?

As of version 1.3.0 the ones on Kerbin and the Mun have been fixed. The only one I've encountered that's really floating a ways off the ground is Sanny's monolith, on Ovok. However, I'm told this could vary slightly depending on how high you have the terrain settings turned up.

4 minutes ago, Bill Phil said:

Also, is it really hard, or just really dense? Also, they could use non mechanical means of separating things, like laser drilling/cutting.

In sci-fi terms, if what I understand is correct, and neutronium comes from the surface of a neutron star... then it's just this side of a black-hole in terms of hardness and density... 

Oh, wait... according to Spock, in the Doomsday Machine, it's the hardest substance in the universe.

 

Edited March 1, 2018 by Just Jim

[phantom000]

3 minutes ago, Bill Phil said:

When did this happen in the series? 

I don't remember anything like that. Then again, my memory is awful. I do remember naquadah, naquariah, and trinium.

Oh... it may just be a substance made of neutrons, not necessarily neutron star material, especially considering that it shows up on some planets.

Also, is it really hard, or just really dense? Also, they could use non mechanical means of separating things, like laser drilling/cutting.

It was when they were dealing with the human form replicators. The Asgard mention their bodies are made from neutronium and they were trying to make more and they had just located a new source and were beginning to mine it.

I don't mind the idea of building things out of neutronium, but if you ever did you would probably just manufacture it, maybe a few atoms at a time and slowly build it up from there.

[mikegarrison]

5 hours ago, Bill Phil said:

Not really. Maybe the original concept, but the actual airship carriers? They weren't bombers at all. They were reconnaissance craft with planes.

To put it this way: they carried slow biplanes (the biplanes had to have a low enough speed to match speeds with the airship and a decent cruising speed). Barely a defense against other fighters in the 1930s.

The F9C was originally designed as a fighter, but you are right, their primary use on the Acron and Macon were to extend the area of ocean that the airships could survey.

Fixed gear biplane fighters were state of the art in 1930 and hopelessly outdated in 1940.

[DAL59]

3 hours ago, phantom000 said:

I would love to know how you 'mine' neutronium considering it is literally the hardest substance possible,

Lasers.  Or if its embedded in rock, just cut the rock out around it.

[phantom000]

9 hours ago, DAL59 said:

Lasers.  Or if its embedded in rock, just cut the rock out around it.

Neutronium is essentially what a neutron star is made of, hence the name. It is quite literally the densest material in the universe because it is theoretically impossible to be any denser then a neutron star. The whole star is one ginormous atom composed of nothing but neutrons because all the protons and electrons have been smashed together to form more neutrons.

If you somehow had a chunk of it, say the size of your fist, that one chunk by itself would way something like 10^17 tons. To cut it you would need to generate a temperature comparable to a super nova.

[Shpaget]

13 hours ago, phantom000 said:

it is literally the hardest substance possible

Really? I honestly don't remember ever hearing/reading anything about hardness of it.

Hardness != density.

What's holding it together? In a neutron star, it's mechanical pressure from gravity, but there is no such mechanism in an isolated chunk.

In regular matter we have ionic, covalent and metallic bonds, but they all depend on electrons.

Wouldn't neutrons just float away from each other without gravity holding them?

Edited March 2, 2018 by Shpaget

[mikegarrison]

14 hours ago, Just Jim said:

My question, and I brought this up in my story a while back, would be if an object the size of a monolith were made of the hardest and densest stuff in the known universe, would it actually be so massive in relation to it's size it would generate it's own gravitational field.

All mass generates its own gravitational field.

[p1t1o]

Its difficult to parse "hardness" when it has to be under such colossal pressure to remain in its state.

For example, lets say I want to try and "scratch" some neutronium with some, say, tungsten carbide.

Oops my tungsten carbide blade was compressed on contact to neutronium by the gravitational environment. So which is harder?

Or, oops the neutronium just exploded into a trillion cubic metres of hydrogen (Im sure the decomposition is more complex than that, but y'know), so which is harder?

 

But I think the whole thing is moot seeing as the core materials (there is a solid iron "crust") that form neutron stars are fluid in nature, so "hardness" does not really apply?

Edited March 2, 2018 by p1t1o

[kerbiloid]

In ptractice the hardness is measured by dissecting/piercing a sample with a tool of "standard" hardness (steel or diamond).
If we can presume that such tool would be smashed itself against the dense pack of neutrons, then we can say that neutronium is harder than such tool.

Edited March 2, 2018 by kerbiloid

[p1t1o]

21 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

In ptractice the hardness is measured by dissecting/piercing a sample with a tool of "standard" hardness (steel or diamond).
If we can presume that such tool would be smashed itself against the dense pack of neutrons, then we can say that neutronium is harder than such tool.

Except that wouldnt happen, the tool would not end the experiment made of the same material it started out as. By the time your tool reached the neutronium surface, it too would be neutronium, and would just *merge* with the tested object. Like testing the "hardness" of water by stabbing it with some water.

If you think about it, this would technically create a depression in the "original" surface material, to make way for the new neutronium introduced, so in effect the testing "probe" IS "piercing" the "surface".

I wont accept any "hypothetical" "meta-stable" "naked" (wow thats a lot of quotation marks) neutronium without some very substantial documentation on its possibility.

So yes, neutronium will effectively destroy any testing probe, but Im not sure if it is "hardness" that is being measured there. I dont think "hardness" is relevant in this context, just as tensile strength is not really relevant to gases.

The strength of the local gravity field renders it moot as by definition the gravity field vastly overcomes any inter-atomic interaction which is where "hardness" comes from. 

Just as the kinetic energy of gaseous atoms vastly overcomes their inter-atomic attraction, rendering "tensile strength" meaningless.

Any material exposed to this environment becomes neutronium, so the very experiment itself is corrupted.

 

Edited March 2, 2018 by p1t1o

[Just Jim]

4 hours ago, mikegarrison said:

All mass generates its own gravitational field.

You're right... I should have said: 

"The monolith was so massive, and generated a gravitational field so strong, it could actually be felt... like some sort of weird magnet..."

Edited March 2, 2018 by Just Jim

[kerbiloid]

 

38 minutes ago, p1t1o said:

Except that wouldnt happen, the tool would not end the experiment made of the same material it started out as. By the time your tool reached the neutronium surface, it too would be neutronium, and would just *merge* with the tested object. Like testing the "hardness" of water by stabbing it with some water.

Fizzix looks at things much easier.

Typical hardness tests.

Spoiler

Dent size — decides.

[YNM]

9 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

Typical hardness tests.

I think if you're trying to measure the hardness of SiC with diamonds it's not going to work. Neutronium would just absorp whatever it's impacting with.

 

 

(EDIT : It turns out this one is toughness !)

Also, if anyone wonders, the test are made by "impacts" - you fell them (free-fall) down a distance then it hits. Not by slowly touching them and then push it down.

Edited March 2, 2018 by YNM

[kerbiloid]

18 minutes ago, YNM said:

I think if you're trying to measure the hardness of SiC with diamonds it's not going to work. Neutronium would just absorp whatever it's impacting with.

Also, if anyone wonders, the test are made by "impacts" - you fell them (free-fall) down a distance then it hits. Not by slowly touching them and then push it down.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardness

Quote

Hardness is a measure of the resistance to localised plastic deformation induced by either mechanical indentation or abrasion

 

[YNM]

7 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardness

Quote

Hardness is a measure of the resistance to localised plastic deformation induced by either mechanical indentation or abrasion

 

True, but you won't get any meaningful value for the "extreme example" given.

 

 

 

I have to revise my earlier saying - I mistook the toughness for hardness... Hardness uses constant force from standing touch.

Edited March 2, 2018 by YNM

[kerbiloid]

6 hours ago, YNM said:

True, but you won't get any meaningful value for the "extreme example" given.

I won't get any meaningful value in any case if there is no visible dent. Say, trying to test a diamond with a steel needle.

Hardness is about "who smashed whom?", not "why"".

Edited March 3, 2018 by kerbiloid

[YNM]

3 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

I won't get any meaningful value in any case if there is no visible dent. Say, trying to test a diamond with a steel needle.

Hardness is about "who smashed whom?", not "why"".

Well, a "realistic neutronium" probe tip would probably go a bit more than your expected dent.

Edited March 3, 2018 by YNM

[ARS]

Can someone confirm that 40mm machine gun is an overkill when it's being used for anti infantry role? Especially when being mounted on drones no bigger than a briefcase? Since some movies has a technician boast a technical specification of a weapon to the main cast, which seems ridiculous when he explained that the walking tank has main armament of 120mm smoothbore cannon and 40mm anti-infantry machine guns mounted on the camera head (which, in itself, is smaller than the diameter of the main cannon)

does 40mm machinegun is an overkill for infantry? (Mind you, this is 40mm bullets, not grenades)

Edited March 5, 2018 by ARS

[StrandedonEarth]

40mm? That's over 1-1/2 inch! For infantry? Maybe if they're wearing a mech suit.... Not to mention that would be expensive....

[Bill Phil]

20 minutes ago, ARS said:

Can someone confirm that 40mm machine gun is an overkill when it's being used for anti infantry role? Especially when being mounted on drones no bigger than a briefcase? Since some movies has a technician boast a technical specification of a weapon to the main cast, which seems ridiculous when he explained that the walking tank has main armament of 120mm smoothbore cannon and 40mm anti-infantry machine guns mounted on the camera head (which, in itself, is smaller than the diameter of the main cannon)

does 40mm machinegun is an overkill for infantry? (Mind you, this is 40mm bullets, not grenades)

Depends on the cartridge. The bullet can be any diameter, but if the cartridge has relatively little powder, it'll have less energy, regardless. Not to mention bullet length, which can also change things. For example, the .223 is similar in diameter to the .22 LR, but the energies involved are vastly different.

Edited March 5, 2018 by Bill Phil

[insert_name]

1 hour ago, ARS said:

Can someone confirm that 40mm machine gun is an overkill when it's being used for anti infantry role? Especially when being mounted on drones no bigger than a briefcase? Since some movies has a technician boast a technical specification of a weapon to the main cast, which seems ridiculous when he explained that the walking tank has main armament of 120mm smoothbore cannon and 40mm anti-infantry machine guns mounted on the camera head (which, in itself, is smaller than the diameter of the main cannon)

does 40mm machinegun is an overkill for infantry? (Mind you, this is 40mm bullets, not grenades)

the gau-8, the a-10's main gun is only 30mm. it  weighs over half a ton and is over 6M long. good luck getting a 40mm into a briefcase

[DDE]

3 hours ago, ARS said:

Can someone confirm that 40mm machine gun is an overkill when it's being used for anti infantry role?

Not if you're looking to conduct area suppression with delay-fused frag/shrapnel shells.