Do you know too much for the author's own good?

[ErikB]

My editor has recently pointed out to me how very difficult it is to smash open a door by running your shoulder at it. I didn't know this. The character will use a crowbar instead.

The principle for breaking down a door (provided it is wood or a comparable composite material) is the same as what is used in karate board breaking demos.

If you strike a board in the center you have a poorer chance of success as this is where the wood has the greatest elasticity. It has the best chance of absorbing the shock evenly and springing back.

Any martial artist with experience breaking boards knows to strike slightly off center. The uneven tension on impact causes the board to break readily.

Kicking a door slightly off center will generally break the door down. But shouldering a door would never be my first bet.

A solid hard kick close to the lock area will often break out the lock in the door jam.

 

[ErikB]

Ocean pressure doesn't crush people - it crushes the air spaces. Fill those spaces with liquid and we can go very deep, too.

The animals living near the vents are not living in 750°F water. They live in the water that is mixing between the vent water and surrounding 31°F water. The highest temp any animal in the vent area can withstand is 176°F.

Actually while temperature variance between stalks of marine worms attached to "black smoker vents" is 50° F from anchor point to tip, but those temperatures are up to 230°F.

But you are correct that vent life is given a respite by mixes of colder water surrounding the vent.

As for temperatures, the tardigrades are the toughest animals we know of and they can live at temperatures between -458° F (-272° C) to 300°F (150° F).

There are around 1,150 known species. They can go for 30 years without food or water. They can withstand pressure 6 times greater than the deepest point in the ocean. As well as ionizing radiation over 100 times greater than a human could take. And they can live in the vacuum of space.

There are a lot of resiliant complex organisms that are hardy and some creatures can tolerate conditions far more extreme than most people realize.

 

[Nick B]

The defining point, being hardy. To be able to withstand a high g environment, lifeforms would have to have a massive power to weight ratio, be low to the ground and have extremely sturdy appendages, backed up by an extremely strong musculoskeletal system. Otherwise they would be crushed.

 

[RX-79G]

Actually while temperature variance between stalks of marine worms attached to "black smoker vents" is 50° F from anchor point to tip, but those temperatures are up to 230°F.

But you are correct that vent life is given a respite by mixes of colder water surrounding the vent.

As for temperatures, the tardigrades are the toughest animals we know of and they can live at temperatures between -458° F (-272° C) to 300°F (150° F).

There are around 1,150 known species. They can go for 30 years without food or water. They can withstand pressure 6 times greater than the deepest point in the ocean. As well as ionizing radiation over 100 times greater than a human could take. And they can live in the vacuum of space.

There are a lot of resiliant complex organisms that are hardy and some creatures can tolerate conditions far more extreme than most people realize.

They can do that because they don't die in those conditions, but they aren't living in some of those extremes, either. Someday we'll figure out freezing people, but no one will claim that humans can live in temps of -200°.

 

[ErikB]

This. Wheras gravity crushes a body against the surface of a physical body. If life evolved on a high G planet, it would have to be extremely strong in order to move. Delicate vegetation could not grow, and certainly small birds could not fly.
I am actualy a firm believer in the ability of life to evolve and survive under extreme conditions, just take tardigrades, they can survive the open vacuum of space.
But - physics. High G worlds maz have life. It just won't be delicate things. And at very high gravity, life simply wouldn't have the opportunity to get past extremely simple, imobile microscopic organhisms, and even they would be extremely unlikely.

Again we need to look at the many other factors not accounted for by simple gravity and distance formulations. The density of gravitons is not the only impact on gravitational force on a planet or organisms on a planet.

A very obvious one is rotation speed. Or if you wish to see it as scientifically shared it is as follows;

F=mv²/r

This is a centrifugal force referenced in a rotating frame equation.

There are also negating impacts from graviton waves, secondary bodies, atmospheric composition, and a variety of star proximity considerations.

Its not as easy as saying the mass of this planet at this size will mean a consistent pull of X. All variables must be taken into account.

And given that a variety of organisms (evolved without the O2 infusion in their bodies that we have as terrestrial beings) live and function at pressures of over 3,350 pounds per square inch, to say a plant or bird could not fly or grow in a denser gravity than our world or a high gravity planet is dismissing the capacity of life to adapt and thrive. I will strongly disagree on that point.

I know of too many organisms that defy some of the ideas we hold as viable limitations of physics.

For years insects like bumble bees and dragonflies "supposedly" defied the laws of physics according to aeronautics experts.

There has been a lot of research into the flight mechanics of insects. Cornell, and other universities have been studying this for some time.

But once biomechanical processes were understood insect flight changed from "defying" scientific laws to easily understood once the affects of vortices were accounted for.

I think gravity is something that life adapts to much better than one might imagine possible.

Cheers!

 

[ErikB]

The defining point, being hardy. To be able to withstand a high g environment, lifeforms would have to have a massive power to weight ratio, be low to the ground and have extremely sturdy appendages, backed up by an extremely strong musculoskeletal system. Otherwise they would be crushed.

The arthropod argument.

It was said that insects could not greatly exceed their current size as their body mass coupled with our gravity would cause them to be crushed or flattened or rendered immobile or weak.

But in the high oxygen content of the Carboniferous period insects grew to MASSIVE proportions. Yet they did not fall apart, fail to function, or require reinforced exoskeletal structure or greater enhanced muscle mass. 6-8 foot long arthropods thrived. Huge eagle sized dragonflies flew. Structurally no different than their smaller descendants today.

It depends very greatly on the degree of gravitational exertion how impaired or to what degree of compensation an organism will need to evolve in order to function.

 

[RX-79G]

The arthropod argument.

It was said that insects could not greatly exceed their current size as their body mass coupled with our gravity would cause them to be crushed or flattened or rendered immobile or weak.

But in the high oxygen content of the Carboniferous period insects grew to MASSIVE proportions. Yet they did not fall apart, fail to function, or require reinforced exoskeletal structure or greater enhanced muscle mass. 6-8 foot long arthropods thrived. Huge eagle sized dragonflies flew. Structurally no different than their smaller descendants today.

It depends very greatly on the degree of gravitational exertion how impaired or to what degree of compensation an organism will need to evolve in order to function.

The biggest dragonflies weighed about 1 pound. The biggest land invertebrates looked like flat, wide blobs supported by many pairs of legs. A modern 4 pound coconut crab is structurally impressive in how they support their weight.

 

[ErikB]

The biggest dragonflies weighed about 1 pound. The biggest land invertebrates looked like flat, wide blobs supported by many pairs of legs. A modern 4 pound coconut crab is structurally impressive in how they support their weight.

Actually meganeura weighed between 1.5 lbs to about 3lbs. I agree on the coconut crabs. So are Alaskan king crabs. Structurally impressive. However the giant arthropleura reached 6.5-8+ feet and weight range from 45lbs - 65lbs.

Good stuff. Cheers!

 

[ErikB]

They can do that because they don't die in those conditions, but they aren't living in some of those extremes, either. Someday we'll figure out freezing people, but no one will claim that humans can live in temps of -200°.

Never said humans could. Freezing (cryogenics) is contingent on preventing cell membranes from rupturing during a freeze. This is done at times using sugar trehalose as a cryoprotective agent.

Actually that initial statement is also inaccurate. Stating that an organism can survive because it isn't dying at a low temperature, but its not living at that temperature either, is impossible.

If an organism is in stasis it may not be active, but it is certainly living if a temperature change can/will cause it to revert back to normal activity.

An organism is either dead, or live. Activity or lack thereof is not related to whether or not the organism is alive. Its like saying a coma patient or a deep catatonic sleeper isn't dying, but they are also not living during their immobile state.

 

[Venusian Broon]

Getting back to the question, I have to say that I very rarely get hung up about 'errors' in another author's work - or at least factual errors as mentioned in the original post. In fact I can't really think of any off hand.

Partly this is because I derive pleasure in reading fiction through entertainment and the story, not by being pedantic!* This also applies to film and TV. I mean, Raiders of the Lost Ark has Indy thrown into a recently opened tomb that is thick with snakes. Where is all the food in the tomb (or even the surrounding desert) for such numbers? Well, I don't really care, the film is great.

I will instead get annoyed at bad books/films for things like terrible plots or characters - things that really do get in the way of a story.

On the other hand, I am terrified of such errors in my own work. Even when it's my own bloody universe and I set the rules myself. Got to have consistency and be as good as I can make it


------------------------------------------------------------------------

* Whereas in interweb forums it can be fun to take ideas and discuss them! Some may call me a touch pedantic on occasion, I call it friendly debating

 

[RX-79G]

ErikB,

I was just pointing out that there is a difference between an animal having an active metabolism in an extreme environment, and when life becomes completely dormant with zero active processes. A dry seed is neither dead or alive - neither is a frozen frog where there is no cellular or neural activity. The right conditions can revive the frog, but it isn't alive until those conditions arrive.

Smaller, simpler animals and plants can stop "living" in a way that is reversible because of their small size and simplicity. As tough as tardigrades are, they aren't nearly as tough as much simpler single celled organisms in that regard.

But the range of conditions that an animal can actively "live" in are fairly narrow because of the problems surrounding retaining or releasing heat for life processes.



Responding to your early post, it appears that several of us disagree with you that a planet could have a stable firm crust planet when it is spinning fast enough to counter very high gravity. The toroidal shape such a planet would attempt to take would cause massive circulation of the liquid core preventing a crust from forming, and that amount friction from that level of circulation would also slow the spin over time, reducing the "centrifugal force". By the time stable enough plates formed for people to stand on, the spin would too low to decrease the effective gravity. Large planets become slow spinning spheres so universally because there are too many forces opposing high rotation rates for the spin to continue for any great length of time.


The point of a lot of this back and forth is that you can learn a lot from science and history about what is possible, but when it comes to exceptional circumstances, like large arthropods, you have to look at why they were exceptional. And since the largest land arthropods where slow moving multilegged pancakes, it just demonstrates why an upright dog size arthropod is impossible with earth biology and gravity. And sci fi readers are sensitive to warped science, where an author takes something he kinda/sorta understands - like "centrifugal force" planets - and runs with it, producing ridiculous results.

 

[ErikB]

Getting back to the question, I have to say that I very rarely get hung up about 'errors' in another author's work - or at least factual errors as mentioned in the original post. In fact I can't really think of any off hand.

Partly this is because I derive pleasure in reading fiction through entertainment and the story, not by being pedantic!* This also applies to film and TV. I mean, Raiders of the Lost Ark has Indy thrown into a recently opened tomb that is thick with snakes. Where is all the food in the tomb (or even the surrounding desert) for such numbers? Well, I don't really care, the film is great.

I will instead get annoyed at bad books/films for things like terrible plots or characters - things that really do get in the way of a story.

On the other hand, I am terrified of such errors in my own work. Even when it's my own bloody universe and I set the rules myself. Got to have consistency and be as good as I can make it


------------------------------------------------------------------------

* Whereas in interweb forums it can be fun to take ideas and discuss them! Some may call me a touch pedantic on occasion, I call it friendly debating

I like that!

 

[ErikB]

ErikB,

I was just pointing out that there is a difference between an animal having an active metabolism in an extreme environment, and when life becomes completely dormant with zero active processes. A dry seed is neither dead or alive - neither is a frozen frog where there is no cellular or neural activity. The right conditions can revive the frog, but it isn't alive until those conditions arrive.

Smaller, simpler animals and plants can stop "living" in a way that is reversible because of their small size and simplicity. As tough as tardigrades are, they aren't nearly as tough as much simpler single celled organisms in that regard.

But the range of conditions that an animal can actively "live" in are fairly narrow because of the problems surrounding retaining or releasing heat for life processes.



Responding to your early post, it appears that several of us disagree with you that a planet could have a stable firm crust planet when it is spinning fast enough to counter very high gravity. The toroidal shape such a planet would attempt to take would cause massive circulation of the liquid core preventing a crust from forming, and that amount friction from that level of circulation would also slow the spin over time, reducing the "centrifugal force". By the time stable enough plates formed for people to stand on, the spin would too low to decrease the effective gravity. Large planets become slow spinning spheres so universally because there are too many forces opposing high rotation rates for the spin to continue for any great length of time.


The point of a lot of this back and forth is that you can learn a lot from science and history about what is possible, but when it comes to exceptional circumstances, like large arthropods, you have to look at why they were exceptional. And since the largest land arthropods where slow moving multilegged pancakes, it just demonstrates why an upright dog size arthropod is impossible with earth biology and gravity. And sci fi readers are sensitive to warped science, where an author takes something he kinda/sorta understands - like "centrifugal force" planets - and runs with it, producing ridiculous results.

I just wanted to say that while I may not agree with all of what has been shared, and I certainly disagree with a few points. I do respect the fascinating and interesting contributions to the discussion and the subject.

Just as I laugh heartily at the absurdity of Big Bang postulation, never the less I do not think that a person embracing the preposterous farce of Big Bang which is one of the strangest accidents of the scientific community is not still capable of a majority of good points. They certainly are. Its not as though it discredits any otherwise well studied scientist. One aspect is not the entirety of any knowledge.

The discussions shared are fascinating and very well constructed and I am grateful for your points. I am. And I do understand them because I was there once too. Similar lines of thought.

I don't hold to the exact same ideas any more and I have seen that often even with well established principles or ideas or long held beliefs that there is room for change when other ideas or discoveries or information refutes one principle or another.

Anyway, thank you for the discussion. I have greatest respect for what you have shared with me. Cheers!

 

[RX-79G]

When did the Big Bang come into this?

I honestly have a hard time following the logic of this kind of post.

 

[ErikB]

When did the Big Bang come into this?

I honestly have a hard time following the logic of this kind of post.

Never mind. I was agreeing to disagree and trying to show some respect for all that you have contributed. Sorry if I lost you on that.

Cheers!

 

[RX-79G]

Oh, no problem.

I would say that this a writing forum, and this thread about writing believable (salable) material that avoids what readers and editors consider warning flags of poor quality Sci Fi. If any writer is going to pose known-science scenarios that are sufficiently odd to raise educated eyebrows, they had better know what they are talking about.

Otherwise, if the rigor part is too much, go the Star Trek route and just make up new types of physics.


When I was a kid I got a Star Quest role playing game. It mentioned having oxygen bottles on firearms to allow them to work in a vacuum. When I mentioned this thoughtful detail to my father (who wasn't interested in firearms at all), he immediately responded that didn't make any sense, because gunpowder could be made with an oxygenator mixed right in it. I was 9 and hadn't had any even basic chemistry at that point, but I also immediately recognized that he was 100% correct and the people writing Star Quest were hacks.

 

[Nick B]

That is why sff chrons is a great place. We can discuss without trolling (for the most part), and while I will stick to my guns on the point of gravity, you Erik have taken all the discussion with good grace. And that is what matters most.

 

[Phyrebrat]

Interesting (and once again a chance for me to feel incredibly stupid)...

Initially I was going to take the "where's your fun?" direction with this argument over convincing scifi - I couldn't care less if someone gets it wrong as long as it's contextual and a good old yarn (having already asserted my dimness when it comes to science).

However, I realised, I might object if someone made egregious errors about art in their wip - not art-history, but practical art such as writing, dance, music etc... So I figure it's all about our own expextations and cultural capital.

I'd miss the sound of TIE Fighters screaming past in SW but conversely, I groan when I see the amount of special fx dancing in hip hop movies like Step Up, Streetdance the movie, You Got Served etc when I know as a dancer those movements cannot be linked without a camera cut and a break for the actor/dancer.

It's like watching a singer dancing on tour and being expected to believe they're not miming or using a gate. When you move like that your diaphragm bounces up and down and plays havoc with breathing and control. I've choreographed for singers before. The brief is always referencing something like Michael Jackson or Madonna; the reality is much less frenetic.

pH

 

[TheDustyZebra]

Partly this is because I derive pleasure in reading fiction through entertainment and the story, not by being pedantic!* This also applies to film and TV. I mean, Raiders of the Lost Ark has Indy thrown into a recently opened tomb that is thick with snakes. Where is all the food in the tomb (or even the surrounding desert) for such numbers? Well, I don't really care, the film is great.

Exactly! And then they put him in a lead-lined refrigerator to survive a nuclear bomb. But I still love Indy anyway.

But, like you, I still worry about all the stuff I don't know -- in fact, it keeps me from writing several of my ideas, because I simply don't know enough to make it believable. I suppose the difference is in being entertaining and generally great, vs being a start-up writer. Or maybe in not being Harrison Ford?

 

[Ursa major]

This also applies to film and TV.

I'm much more forgiving of errors in films and TV, as long as they are able to distract me sufficiently from those errors. Having a lot going on is one sort of distraction. Having not a lot going on -- as was the case with the woeful Outcasts -- gives me time for my mind to wander, and it often wanders onto the subject of "Why is this such a load of old rubbish? I know: I'll list the reasons."

Now if a book has grabbed me by the scruff of the neck -- such that even though I'm theoretically in control of the pace (because I control my speed of reading and can decide to stop and have a think), I feel I must keep turning those pages -- the smaller errors might pass me by (as well as the bigger errors that I simply don't realise are errors ). But it's a far harder for an author to achieve this than it is for the writers and directors of films or TV shows.