Should science fiction films ONLY be allowed if they get the gravity right?

[Brian Peacock]

I think the 'fiction' part of 'science fiction' is important here - though most of the 'science' bit in 'science fiction' is engineering. However, 'engineering fiction' doesn't have the same ring to it does it(?)

[Scot Dutchy]

I used to love my Eagle comics as a kid but in Dan Dare there were so many mistakes it really did become a comic.

[L'Emmerdeur]

c'mon, by that yardstick, historical movies should only be allowed if they got their history right, and that meanst that all of them would be disallowed... SF films are foremost fiction, not science, and they're no means to educate the public in matters scientifical.

Fuck YOU with a train comprised of Isaac Asimov, Robert Heinlein and Piers Anthony.

Philistine!

when computers are powered by 'positronic brains", then will asimov be a science author (yes I know he was educated in science and that heinlein was an engineer)... let's face it, regardless of background, their writings were not real science.

While I think I understand what you're saying, I'll still proceed to speak up for the honor of Dr. Asimov. He had a doctorate in biochemistry and taught it at Boston University. What's more, he wrote many excellent books whose sole purpose was educating the lay public on science topics.

While his science fiction dealt with speculative extrapolations of the science of his day, I think he tried to avoid the outright impossible while not always succeeding. (Space opera FTL travel was a necessity in the Foundation series, for instance.)

[Svartalf]

well, obviously , I may not have read the right books by Asimov, much as I understand I Robot to be more speculative fiction than actual science (where are my positronic brains, heck, how do we even use positrons in science 50 years later)... thing is, he posited scientific advances in his fiction that are neither known now, nor even in the line of what science even thinks it can ever achieve, he made science fantasy.

[Sean Hayden]

c'mon, by that yardstick, historical movies should only be allowed if they got their history right, and that meanst that all of them would be disallowed... SF films are foremost fiction, not science, and they're no means to educate the public in matters scientifical.

Fuck YOU with a train comprised of Isaac Asimov, Robert Heinlein and Piers Anthony.

Philistine!

when computers are powered by 'positronic brains", then will asimov be a science author (yes I know he was educated in science and that heinlein was an engineer)... let's face it, regardless of background, their writings were not real science.

While I think I understand what you're saying, I'll still proceed to speak up for the honor of Dr. Asimov. He had a doctorate in biochemistry and taught it at Boston University. What's more, he wrote many excellent books whose sole purpose was educating the lay public on science topics.

While his science fiction dealt with speculative extrapolations of the science of his day, I think he tried to avoid the outright impossible while not always succeeding. (Space opera FTL travel was a necessity in the Foundation series, for instance.)

Yep, I've actually got his introduction to physics book, and his robot stories are some of my favorites. There's real thinking in his work.

[Cunt]

There's real thinking in his work.

We used to have a set of mathematics encyclopedias, and he was among the authors.

He wrote more than most of you will ever read lol

[Rum]

Also -never mind science fiction. Was watching a Horizon documentary about the Juno probe to Jupiter this evening. They overplayed some of the (amazing) pics of the planet with animations of Juno doing its thing and now and again its navigation jets would fire and the twats added ‘fffttt’ jet sounds.

Idiots.

[L'Emmerdeur]

I've enjoyed and appreciated "Horizon" but WTF?

The dolt who chose to add sound effects should be made to wear a dunce cap while at work for at least a month.

[Hermit]

There's real thinking in his work.

We used to have a set of mathematics encyclopedias, and he was among the authors.

He wrote more than most of you will ever read lol

You conducted a survey to come to that conclusion? If so, having read well over a thousand books and many more articles and essays, I must consider myself to be part of the minority.

In my mid teens to mid twenties I devoured SF, mostly for its escapism, but some of the scientific speculations fascinated me. One of the story lines, written in the early or mid 1960s featured an army created from one individual who was genetically modified to become totally fearless and unconditionally obedient, and then cloned. Wild speculation then, literally fantastic, and still somewhat speculative, but not as far removed from pure fantasy now as it was a bit over half a century ago.

Physical absurdities turned me right off. I only looked at a Superman comic once. A few pages in someone fell (or was pushed) from a multistorey building. Superman swooped down and caught that person one or two metres off the ground. It occurred to me that he shouldn't have bothered - the deceleration caused by being caught in Superman's arms would have broken his bones and splatted his organs the same way as if he had hit the concrete a couple of metres further down. I never bothered with Superman, or any other superhero, again.

[Cunt]

There's real thinking in his work.

We used to have a set of mathematics encyclopedias, and he was among the authors.

He wrote more than most of you will ever read lol

You conducted a survey to come to that conclusion? If so, having read well over a thousand books and many more articles and essays, I must consider myself to be part of the minority.

I would compare your careful, thoughtful claim to the number he wrote, but I've had a tough time counting.

Stand by, thighs quivering with anticipation. It surely won't be long.

I only looked at a Superman comic once. A few pages in someone fell (or was pushed) from a multistorey building. Superman swooped down and caught that person one or two metres off the ground. It occurred to me that he shouldn't have bothered - the deceleration caused by being caught in Superman's arms would have broken his bones and splatted his organs the same way as if he had hit the concrete a couple of metres further down. I never bothered with Superman, or any other superhero, again.

Yea, I saw that episode of Big Bang Theory, too. Funny episode. Very sciency.

[laklak]

Frodo lives, man.

[rainbow]

Unobtainium deficiency most likely.

[trdsf]

(stays out of the Asimov commentary other than to note that he's listening to his audiobook of the core Foundation trilogy for the nth time, where n is a large but still technically finite integer)

[trdsf]

...and of course, in anything not set in the near future, relativity and the limitations of the speed of light (and the potential consequences in the unlikely event of it ever being exceeded) are completely ignored.

I have to reference Clarke as the counterexample here — in both Rendezvous with Rama and Childhood's End, interstellar travel is both tardyonic and relativistic, and in the latter book is explicitly used in a subplot. Carl Sagan turned to physicist Kip Thorne for a relativity-compliant means of fast interplanetary travel in Contact.

Otherwise, they kind of have to be ignored, set aside, or explained away in order to have a galactic (or even wide-spread interplanetary) civilization. As long as it's handled consistently, it seems to work most of the time. It's hard to write an interplanetary story where it's years, decades, or even centuries between replies.

[Alan B]

I first came across Asimov in San Francisco airport in 1958 when I bought a copy of Foundation (hardback). I think I have them all tucked away on my bookshelves with all the other SF.

The third episode of Orville made an attempt to get the gravity 'right' (I think).