Science and Fiction in Science Fiction

[Transwarp]

wouldn't the ability to tell stories anything like what we're used to -- with weekly episodes set in different systems with different species, and back-and-forth relationships among them -- be utterly crippled by any serious attempt at real astronomical and scientific reality?

Yes, if by scientific reality you mean no warp drive and relativistic speed limits. But if you allow for the fictional elements of science fiction, then the answer is no. You COULD have a science fiction TV show with weekly episodes set in different systems with different species, and back-and-forth relationships among them, WITHOUT all the bad science. I can easily imagine tense space battles WITHOUT boulder-crushing asteroid belts or pea-soup thick nebulas. I can easily imagine interpersonal relationships set on a world orbiting a REAL star that's every bit as gripping as if it were on a made-up star. So you'll have to do a little math to calculate distances and transit times? So you'll have to pay attention to previous episodes to avoid continuity errors (something ST was horrible at)? So you won't get to write that story where mysterious Zeta radiation zaps your DNA and turns you into a telepathic nematode? So you'll have to get some science-literate people to review your scripts and catch your errors? (Or--here's an idea--maybe hire some writers that have some science training themselves.)
Am I really asking too much?

[Asso]

...Am I really asking too much?

In a way, I - unfortunately - think so.

[Alelou]

Hey, tell me more about those telepathic nematodes!

[pdsldl]

I wish they had been more realistic with the distance/time lines too and the continuity errors are beyond careless on any show. We were given the warp drive (no warp drive, no show because it took years to get anywhere) and it was the basis of space travel and I was more than willing to ignore the implausibility for storytellings sake. Did they abuse it yes. But if they had been more respectful of the rest of the actual science and realities of time and distance and used real stars, nebula's, etc... and made them more realistic it would have made me much happier. I had less trouble with Voyager because they were in the delta quadrant and things could have been different there and also with season 3 of Enterprise because they were in the expanse where episodes dealt with the problems Trip was experiencing because that part of space had been altered and operated outside the laws of physics. They wanted to operate in a recognizable place for humans while ignoring the realities of science within that world. I took astronomy in college and while 10 to the 10th power baffled me I still gained some sense of where things are and what asteroids etc...look like and how they behave and I was an English major. And I don't think it's asking too much to satisfy the most basic of scientific laws or at least acknowledge the fact that what you're doing is completely fictional and come up with some sort of rationale for it.

[Silverbullet]

I believe I have mentioned this before. In the Golden Age of Science Fiction many of the writers had solid Scientific grounding being Scientists. Some in Physics. Asimov was a biologist. If he didn't know it he asked to make sure that he was as sound as he could be given the restraints of what he was writing.

Heinlein was visited by the FBI for accurately describing an Atomic explosion complete with Musroom cloud. He told them he had extrapolated and had talked with others who were knowledgeable.

What was used in that age was Hyperdrive. Ship dropped into the next dimension and then back in to the proper dimension. The ship had Jumped through Hyper space.

What usually puzzled me was that times Arrow only goes forward. If a ship warped through space and time it would be ahead. How in Hell did it get back to its starting time point.

But if I can accept that Human male can Prong a Vulcan Female I can go along with Warp Drive easily enough

[pdsldl]

What was used in that age was Hyperdrive. Ship dropped into the next dimension and then back in to the proper dimension. The ship had Jumped through Hyper space.

What usually puzzled me was that times Arrow only goes forward. If a ship warped through space and time it would be ahead. How in Hell did it get back to its starting time point.

That's one of those questions like how time travels could possibly really work. How can a future you visit a past where you existed? Some things you just have to let slide or give up on the genre entirely. Many of my friends hate Sci-fi for that very reason. They can't suspend their disbelief long enough to enjoy a good story/series.

[justTripn]

Truth is stranger than fiction, and science, particularly physics, is weirder than science fiction. So science-math types, who are used to playing totally abstract ridiculous-sounding systems of concepts, are fine with a totally abstract make-believe systems of concepts like Star Trek. If the Starfleet engineers can say it with a straight face and the words correspond to concepts in your head (even make believe nonsense) at least consistent enough that you feel like you can follow, it is so cool.

I remember once my boss sent me an article that made fun of Star Trek by listing the like fifty completely different mechanisms for time travel mentioned in the different episodes and movies. I was getting a big kick out of it because 1) recognized all the different mechanisms and remembered the episodes they came from. I wrote back that it was hilarious but actually, the irreversability of time is an illusion, that we inevitably perceive time as moving forwards because of the the Second Law of Thermodynamics but all of space time exists as a whole. Well, my boss wrote back, "Ha, ha, ha. Isn't Star Trek hilarious." And I wrote back, "No that wasn't Star Trek. I was serious."

See? It's all about hanging out with other people willing to consider the unknown possibilities of existence.

[Silverbullet]

Pdsldl, The Grandfather Paradox covers that beautifullly. I have read some Scifi stories about going back in time and then having to do it again and meeting yourself. Then having to go back to correct that only to meet a third you. I have read that a person or thing cannot occurpy the same space at the same time or there will be a Hell of a bang. Just theory,

Einstiine was convinced that Time Travel was impossible. We could not trvel in to the futrue becuse it wes just Potential and did not yet exist, for us. Although our future would be someones Past in the Future. Traveling back in to the past would involve having to step out of the time line and then back in.

Made my Head ache.

[pdsldl]

I agree with the making ones head ache. There are some of those issues you just have to decide you're not going to try to figure out because all it does is make you crazy. Those big issues I can let slide because no one but the brainiac scientists who work on with such theories have any clue what it's all about. I'm more concerned with the stuff they do that makes me think they are out to insult our intelligence. Get it right or explain it away with some plausible scenario so we don't get pulled out of the story by laziness or poor planning/writing. I tend to avoid the scientific stuff for just that reason. Not that I'm afraid of the extra work but I don't have a strong enough background in science, other than biology.

[Alelou]

I have to admit I wish they hadn't done so many time travel stories on Star Trek. I actually didn't mind it on Ent as much as I did on TNG, when I remember thinking those episodes were tedious even when I first saw them. Really, though "City on the Edge of Forever" could have done it for me for a lifetime of Trek stories. Once was enough. (And maybe Star Trek IV just for fun...)

Never much liked the holodeck either, except maybe for "The Big Goodbye." But that was enough. Both time travel and the holodeck always feel like cheats to me.