Bad science in fiction Hall of Shame

[YNM]

50 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

There is no spoon story.

Hahah 

37 minutes ago, DDE said:

Don't forget that the original script said the people were there for processing power, not electricity.

That'd be even more interesting...

But yeah, not really a sci-fi.

[kerbiloid]

5 minutes ago, YNM said:

But yeah, not really a sci-fi.

Here we come to the question:

Is a sci-fi taking place in a virtual reality sci or not sci?

A supercomputer itself which can contain a virtual world is defnitely sci-fi.
But game physics is arbitrary. Like in magic fantasy.

When we are studying physical properties of Kerbin or Spore planets, are we playing a sci-fi game?

Edited February 15, 2018 by kerbiloid

[Guest]

1 hour ago, mikegarrison said:

2) Ceres does not have 1g surface gravity. It's only 1/3 g. (Of course, the filming set does have 1g gravity, not much they could really do about it.) And it's been artificially reinforced to hold together with that 1/3 g spin.

3) Eros actually was going for Earth, until Miller convinced Julie to go to Venus instead. So everyone who observed it as going to Earth was simply accurate. Those accelerations were not random any more than a zig-zagging convoy is randomly crossing the ocean. It may randomly zig zag, but it's doing so around an overall consistent trajectory.

Okay, 1/3 g. Even so, it would fly apart. There is simply no way to reinforce a planetoid that big to resist that. Not until the alien supertechnologies were discovered anyway, and Ceres was reinforced before that.

(I have a sci-fi project of my own btw and did some reading about what asteroids are made of. Most are rubble piles that would fly apart if spun faster than their very weak gravity holds them together. Some, notably the metallic ones, are solid lumps and could conceivably be spun up for gravity. Ceres is a dwarf planet though, which is spherical due to its own gravity. Spin that up and it most definitely would fly to pieces.)

We know Eros was going towards Earth, but there was no way they could have predicted that by observing its trajectory. It wasn't accelerating at a constant rate or even in a constant direction. A 1 m/s adjustment burn around the asteroid belt will mean the difference between hitting the earth and not. Ten m/s will get you to miss the sphere of influence. And one minute of 15 gees will put you pretty much anywhere in the Solar System.

finally ---> the authors themselves have repeatedly stated that The Expanse is not hard sci-fi, and they're not trying to be scientifically accurate. I respect their candour in that. Even so, I don't like it: as I said, it puts the series in physics uncanny valley for me. It just doesn't work like that!

[p1t1o]

2 hours ago, DDE said:

Don't forget that the original script said the people were there for processing power, not electricity.

What?! No!

Totally called that, had no idea about the original script

6 hours ago, p1t1o said:

Personally I subscribe to a one-layer MWAM, what is seen as the "real" in the films is also within a matrix, and outside that, the machines are harvesting energy from us in a far more efficient manner, or even using us as computing power or biochemical factories.

 

 

[kerbiloid]

And Agent Smith is a self-reproducing proactive antivirus.

[ARS]

The whole "using humans as a power source" idea. In reality, it would be an enormously terrible idea to use ANY living thing as power source. Burning humans is provides way more energy than using their bioelectrical output (also, since they can grow humans on fetus field farms, burning humans is much more simpler since they don't have to deal with life support systems). Rumour has it that the original idea was to have the humans being used as processors for computing power, but then somebody on the production said that this idea was way too complex for most moviegoers to grasp, so they changed to Duracell batteries.

A bit more on the prequel of the matrix, the Animatrix, the humans used nukes to destroy the 0-1 (machine city) but it has no effect on machines since they are resistant towards heat. Apparently nukes on the future doesn't have EMP effect or blast shockwave from their detonation, merely creates "heat"

[DAL59]

9 hours ago, Brikoleur said:

dV reserves out of whack at all.

They have 1000s of kilometers per second of dV.  They can just go to their next desination slightly slower.  

9 hours ago, Brikoleur said:

Things falling out of orbit when blown up, e.g. Phoebe, the mirrors around Ganymede

If you have a station in low orbit of Tylo, and you blow it up, half of it will hit the ground, and half will go to a higher orbit.

[kerbiloid]

4 hours ago, ARS said:

The whole "using humans as a power source" idea. In reality, it would be an enormously terrible idea to use ANY living thing as power source. Burning humans is provides way more energy than using their bioelectrical output (also, since they can grow humans on fetus field farms, burning humans is much more simpler since they don't have to deal with life support systems).

Exactly.

But if you have to feed them anyway, it's wise to utilize the heat which they will anyway produce.

So, the question is: why should machines feed the humans rather than just use the life support's power source themselves?
The only answer: because they must, they have an order.

Edited February 15, 2018 by kerbiloid

[YNM]

6 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

Is a sci-fi taking place in a virtual reality sci or not sci?

A supercomputer itself which can contain a virtual world is defnitely sci-fi.
But game physics is arbitrary. Like in magic fantasy.

It isn't.

Science ! depends on what you observe, so while it might be flawless in the facts of a simulation, the outlying "reality" would count as well in whether it's a Science ! - fiction or just a fiction.

So, given the human heat/power stuff, not really scientific.

4 hours ago, ARS said:

grow humans on fetus field farms

They'd still need nutritions and such. Why not just burn whatever else it was even before ?

Edited February 15, 2018 by YNM

[kerbiloid]

11 minutes ago, YNM said:

It isn't.

I'm not sure.
The science is just a knowledge systematization based on critical comparing of observed facts.
If spells and rituals worked in our world and gave predictable and reproductable results, the magic would be just a branch of science.

So, imho while a setting gives you ability to use scientific methods to research it, there is no difference if this is about starships and black holes or about griffons and magic wands.
Just usually always the "fantasy" literature makes the things happen just on somebody's words, so you have to get this world dogmatically.

Edited February 15, 2018 by kerbiloid

[ARS]

First Transformers movie:

1. An AC-130U Spooky gunship is used to take down the Decepticon Scorponok using "105 sabot rounds". The AC-130 is armed with a 105 mm howitzer, but there is no such thing as a sabot round for this type of weapon.

2. F-22 Raptors were used to attack the Decepticons during the final battle using laser guided air-to-ground missiles. In real life, the F-22 cannot carry any laser guided air-to-ground missiles; it is designed to use GPS-guided bombs for air-to-ground attacks.

3. Freakin' jet powered Predator. While the C variant of the Predator is jet powered, it also has substantially redesigned wings and fuselage. Putting a jet engine in a Predator B frame and putting it through the maneuvers in the movie would probably have snapped the wings off.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, DAL59 said:

If you have a station in low orbit of Tylo, and you blow it up, half of it will hit the ground, and half will go to a higher orbit.

No it won't. By far most of it will stay in various orbits up there, and the few pieces that do make it to surface will do much less damage than micrometeorites which would be coming in much faster relatively frequently.

As to the dV thing, if they have as good as infinite dV, then it won't make any difference where and on what trajectory you are, it'd be just as easy and take just as little time to fly to the RV point from wherever, and there would be no need for that naval rescue etiquette thing.

[magnemoe]

9 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

Here we come to the question:

Is a sci-fi taking place in a virtual reality sci or not sci?

A supercomputer itself which can contain a virtual world is defnitely sci-fi.
But game physics is arbitrary. Like in magic fantasy.

When we are studying physical properties of Kerbin or Spore planets, are we playing a sci-fi game?

Now my take on Matrix 1 ending, I would change it all to an pretty dystonian interstellar colony, think Avatar on an desert / Siberian planet without catgirls but with other monsters. 
Now you broke free of the AI bound and manage to kill it, the next room was the bridge on the starship you was on, all board was red because no AI control. 
You was on an generation ship the only one humans was able to get away. 
The setting is kind of the worst case scenario for colony and they want you to be ready. 
As an bonus you beat planet of the apes ending  However it would not work well in an age if instant global communication. 
 

[YNM]

6 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

I'm not sure.
The science is just a knowledge systematization based on critical comparing of observed facts.
If spells and rituals worked in our world and gave predictable and reproductable results, the magic would be just a branch of science.

Well, Discworld has a pretty "reliable" magic. So is Harry Potter. So is Tolkien's Mid-Earth. But they're no sci-fi.

IMO Sci-fi is an unrealized reality; Docudrama would be the realized one. So if there was a film before Apollo missions that depicts human landing on the Moon reasonably realistically that'd be Sci-fi; but a film that features Apollo today would be docudrama.

Jules Verne's From the Earth to the Moon is too fantasical, hence it doesn't count as Sci-fi. Not sure whether it really is that fantasical back then though !

[kerbiloid]

4 hours ago, YNM said:

Well, Discworld has a pretty "reliable" magic. So is Harry Potter. So is Tolkien's Mid-Earth. But they're no sci-fi.

None of them. They all are axiomatic. What they say — you just can take. You can't predict or estimate something, and they are constantly changing the game rules on the game progress.

4 hours ago, YNM said:

Jules Verne's From the Earth to the Moon is too fantasical, hence it doesn't count as Sci-fi.

Probably this is the first time I hear that Jules Verne's books are not sci-fi.
Of course they suffer from enjoy a lot of inaccuracies (electricity is like a magic there), but they are based on accurate numbers and solid physical principles (though author makes calculation errors from time to time).

Edited February 16, 2018 by kerbiloid

[YNM]

22 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

None of them. They all are axiomatic. What they say — you just can take. You can't predict or estimate something, and they are constantly changing the game rules on the game progress.

Well, you can't tell wether in Gravity's universe muons experience dilated time. They're just too shallow to contain everything.

23 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

Probably this is the first time I hear that Jules Verne's books are not sci-fi.

Well, if you release it new in 21st century it's not a sci-fi 

[kerbiloid]

1 hour ago, YNM said:

Well, you can't tell wether in Gravity's universe muons experience dilated time. They're just too shallow to contain everything.

Muons hardly have a meaning there.
But if a magic setting were scientific, you could exclaim: "What does this stupid Dumbledore do. The magic doesn't work that way. He would put three spoons of the frog blood, because..." — not because you've read a recipe, but because you have alculated this yourself...
...and a page later Dumbledore should exclaim: "What a stupid I am. I need three spoons of frog blood, wasn't that obvious!"

So, in a scientific setting you could make your own researches and predictions.

Edited February 16, 2018 by kerbiloid

[YNM]

54 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

Muons hardly have a meaning there.
But if a magic setting were scientific, you could exclaim: (...)

... So, in a scientific setting you could make your own researches and predictions.

So, does dodging bullets in a simulation counts as scientific or fantasy ?

[kerbiloid]

3 minutes ago, YNM said:

So, does dodging bullets in a simulation counts as scientific or fantasy ?

In the same degree like irl. If you understand how this works, there is no fantastic in it for you. If you don't - then "enough developed science looks like magic".

Edited February 16, 2018 by kerbiloid

[DDE]

7 hours ago, YNM said:

Jules Verne's From the Earth to the Moon is too fantasical, hence it doesn't count as Sci-fi. Not sure whether it really is that fantasical back then though !

Is it too fantastical? Or did it just not age well?

This one had Tsiolkovsky as a scientific advisor.

 

Edited February 16, 2018 by DDE

[p1t1o]

I believe Jules Verne's From the Earth to the Moon involves a space gun no? Much later, during the cold war, this concept received some serious research, culminating in this famous experiment:

 

It also included some accurate conceptswhich were very advanced for its time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_the_Earth_to_the_Moon#Technological_aspects_of_the_novel

And most technological inaccuracies were simply down to the fact that it was written in the mid 1800's, so it was probably super-hard sci-fi by the definition of its day. I dont think it is appropriate to strip it of that title just because we exist further in the future. I mean, it literally predicted the future 100 years in advance (men on the moon), so it was by definition, un-realised reality.

If it was written today, it would be an "alternate history", which is a genre which has a lot of overlap with sci-fi.

 

32 minutes ago, DDE said:

This one had Tsiolkovsky as a scientific advisor.

o_0

Noooiiiiiiice!!

[purpleivan]

I don't have any specific movie suggestions that would be new to this list, but here's some of my pet peeves.

• Numbers are for nerds - the use of ridiculously small (almost always, but occasionally large) numbers, especially for distances, speeds and financial costs.
• Training, what training - scientists and astronauts that act like 10 year olds on a suger buzz, rather than highly trained, responsible individuals, operating in dangerous environments using incredibly expensive hardware.
• Don't give HAL the wheel - the onboard computer can converse with the crew and carry out complex analysis of data, but the spacecraft is flown by some sack of giblets punching buttons and manouvering with a stick.
• Hands on experience - no matter how technologically advanced, no weaponry bigger than you can carry seems to exist. No missiles, tanks, aircraft etc. Just guys shooting at each other with ray guns.

[purpleivan]

On 15/02/2018 at 11:05 AM, Brikoleur said:

KSP has ruined The Expanse for me.

I mean, it looks like hard sci-fi and sounds like hard sci-fi and occasionally nerds out about vacuum exposure and black-body radiation, but it does not respect Sir Isaac Newton at all. And I'm not talking about Epstein Drive here, I can accept that for narrative reasons.

Some of my pet peeves:

• The Canterbury stopping to check out a distress signal on an asteroid mid-course, "because it's the only ship in the area." Yeah that'd be a nice deceleration burn that wouldn't throw the dV reserves out of whack at all.
• Things falling out of orbit when blown up, e.g. Phoebe, the mirrors around Ganymede
• "It's going for Earth!" about Eros when it's accelerating at 15 g and more in random directions, I mean 15 g is about 150 m/s^2 and we all know what even a 1 m/s midcourse adjustment burn does to your trajectory
• That "gravity assist course" thing the Roci does around Ganymede 
• Ceres spun up so it has around 1 g centrifugal surface gravity in tunnels near the equator. It would fly apart!

I like that the show at least takes a nod towards realism, and overall I've found it very entertaining, but that gravity assist course course had me cringing. The speed of it was completely ridiculous.

[YNM]

8 hours ago, p1t1o said:

Much later, during the cold war, this concept received some serious research, culminating in this famous experiment (...)

Well, the ratios of Verne's cannon wasn't as extreme XD

 

But yeah, as I just said, it depends. I was trying to talk about simulation; my point with Verne was just on the fact that today it'd be on the nose even if it was a simulation. Like Matrix characters dodging bullets.

[p1t1o]

15 minutes ago, YNM said:

Well, the ratios of Verne's cannon wasn't as extreme XD

 

But yeah, as I just said, it depends. I was trying to talk about simulation; my point with Verne was just on the fact that today it'd be on the nose even if it was a simulation. Like Matrix characters dodging bullets.

I was avoiding the "sci-fi in VR" discussion because it made my brain hurt too much