06-20-2022, 06:03 PM | #31 | |
Join Date: Apr 2005
|
Re: 1822 superscience
Quote:
Certainly, anything to do with high energy radiation or cosmology. Electricity was beginning to be understood, but electronics using vacuum tubes are about 80 years away and transistors are about 130 years away. The mechanisms of highly miniaturized electronics, like a modern smart phone, might not be observable using period microscopy, thus making such devices seem like superscience. Computers would only be imperfectly understood as "thinking machines" or "automatons". The conceptual algebra that led to computer programs was still 20-40 years away in 1822, and the concept of applying such logic to electronic devices was about 110 years away. Many of the elements on the upper end of the periodic table weren't discovered until the mid- to late-19th century, so anything made with rare earth elements would be the classic "metal unknown to science." Materials such as aluminum, plastic, or composites would also be inexplicable. Aluminum was a precious metal until widespread electricity make it economical to refine. A scientist could quickly determine the material, but not how so much precious metal came to be. The nearest thing to plastic would be soft natural rubber or horn. Vulcanized rubber was still a decade away and widespread use of hydrocarbon-based chemicals, except as fuels, was about 40-50 years away. Composites might be described as some sort of ceramic or metal. The material chemistry involved is sufficiently complex that scientists might not be able to figure out how they were made or even what they were made of. Taken out of context, just about any device used to control a high tech gadget would be inexplicable, e.g., a TV remote without a TV. Scientists could probably figure out what it was made of, but would have no clue what it is supposed to do. ("Possibly, a ritual object.") Last edited by Pursuivant; 06-20-2022 at 06:08 PM. |
|
06-20-2022, 06:45 PM | #32 | |
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Brazil
|
Re: 1822 superscience
Quote:
|
|
06-20-2022, 06:47 PM | #33 | |
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Lawrence, KS
|
Re: 1822 superscience
Quote:
__________________
Bill Stoddard I don't think we're in Oz any more. |
|
06-20-2022, 06:50 PM | #34 | |
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Oz
|
Re: 1822 superscience
Quote:
__________________
Decay is inherent in all composite things. Nod head. Get treat. |
|
06-20-2022, 07:54 PM | #35 | |
Join Date: Jun 2006
|
Re: 1822 superscience
Quote:
I think a better distinction might be how much detail does the writer have to make up out of unsupported nothing. If you wanted to write a story about super high or low frequency light in 1820, that would be virtually everything, from how it was produced to what its effects were. With the "impossible" definition, well, the odds of your being right would be quite small, but if you did get amazingly lucky the story isn't "superscience", while if you guessed wrong it is, even if nobody knows which is which yet? That seems odd. I'm not even so sure something needs to be "impossible" to merit the category. Medicine for example can get the superscience label for miracle cures, even if they are miracle cures for things that people do occasionally survive. It's not that recovery is impossible, the "super" part is you can obtain it reliably. I think surgery might be in this category in the early 19th century - sure if you could somehow keep the patient still for the procedure and prevent infection it might be *possible*, but nobody could do that, and look the author had to make up these imaginary chemical sedation agents and anti-infection drugs to make the story work....
__________________
-- MA Lloyd |
|
06-20-2022, 07:57 PM | #36 | ||
Join Date: Dec 2007
|
Re: 1822 superscience
Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by David Johnston2; 06-20-2022 at 08:01 PM. |
||
06-20-2022, 08:02 PM | #37 | |
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Brazil
|
Re: 1822 superscience
Quote:
For example, the market of microchips is almost reaching the apex of technological improvement, because soon they will start to be manufactured at the atomic level, thus further miniaturization wont be possible. Wouldnt it be considered superscience to go beyond that barrier of design (not of science)? Another example: lets say for example that Warp Drive is found out to be theoretically possible... But current engineering claims you'd need the energy of a star to do it. Wouldnt a new engineering model capable to overcome such a barrier be considered superscience today? Last edited by KarlKost; 06-20-2022 at 08:20 PM. |
|
06-20-2022, 08:15 PM | #38 | |
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Brazil
|
Re: 1822 superscience
Quote:
What? Communication boxes? Working on some futuristic fuel beyond steam? PREPOSTEROUS. Gentleman - and ladies, obviously. I believe that we all can agree that we are enlightned people from our enlightned era. Gurps 1822 is undoubtly the most refined and sofisticated game of our time, but clearly this is too extravagant of a proposition. Technological boxes using the aether to communicate sounds like magic. I think we can all agree that this should be moved to the select field of "superscience", for those thought inspiring ideas that are nonetheless too fantastic to ever be true. More tea anyone? |
|
06-20-2022, 08:40 PM | #39 | |
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Oz
|
Re: 1822 superscience
Quote:
This reminds me of something that Isaac Asimov wrote about the origins of science fiction, arguing that science fiction was impossible before the readers (and writer types) became aware that science was making new discoveries and enabling really new technology. You can't have superscience before you have science.
__________________
Decay is inherent in all composite things. Nod head. Get treat. |
|
06-20-2022, 08:50 PM | #40 | |
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Oz
|
Re: 1822 superscience
Quote:
An example would be reaction engines such as the Nuclear-saltwater rocket and the TL10 fusion torch, which obey all conservation laws, but the performance characteristics of which imply a temperature in the reaction chamber at which no possible material would remain solid. The reason it's a joke is that the relevant scientists (materials scientists and condensed-matter physicists) do understand why the walls of the reaction chamber can't be that hot, and thermodynamicists do understand how reaction temperature limits exhaust speed in a thermal rocket.
__________________
Decay is inherent in all composite things. Nod head. Get treat. |
|
Tags |
science fiction, tech level |
|
|