[ SECRET POST #2557 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2557 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.



__________________________________________________


11.














Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 013 secrets from Secret Submission Post #364.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

OP mentioned HARD sci fi.

Copied and pasted from my above comment:

Hard sci fi is about stuff that's scientifically plausible, even if we don't have the technology at the moment: Everything that happens fits the laws of physics and the scientific data at the time

Stuff like the Marvel movies and the Hunger Games and Pacific Rim and Star Trek is not about hard real science.

For hard sci fi, think Gravity, though even that got called out by Neil Tyson.

REAL Hard Sci Fi, an astrophysicist like Neil Tyson would examine and go: "yep" because even if we can't do it right now, it fits the known laws of physics and science in such a way that it COULD be done. See: The Space Elevator, The Ringworld

Hard sci fi will often provide specific details: numbers, angles, sizes, trajectory speeds, ect, and if you do the math and study the specific details given they will all make complete sense in terms of math and science.

Soft sci fi is pretty much the creator going "this would be cool". To be fair, a lot of soft sci fi has led to technological advancement (Star Trek comes to mind) because scientists hadn't even thought of those concepts. Non invasive surgery for example, was not even considered plausible until Star Trek thought of it, but Gene Roddenberry and the Trek creators didn't have any scientific reason for thinking of it, it was just a neat idea.
Soft sci fi also tends to be more concerned with society in the future and the way people will behave: See Star Trek's super sunny idealistic view of race relations and gender relations. Uhura and Chekov having major positions in Star Fleet was a big deal, because it spoke about a future where there was no racism and the world powers were pretty much at peace. Hunger Games talks of a much darker future where the rich watch poor children compete to the death for entertainment. The commentaries on society are a much bigger deal in the stories than the science.

[bringreligiontothewamwams]

Tyson should have stuck to boxing, he sucks as an astronomer. He can't even identify a planet when it is whizzing around the edge of the solar system.

[(Anonymous)]

...God you're gross

[(Anonymous)]

Awww, someone's butthurt Pluto got demoted. Cute.

[(Anonymous)]

I know I sure as fuck am!
Pluto was is my favourite planet

OP

[(Anonymous)]

Anon above does an excellent job of explaining myself for me. :-)

[(Anonymous)]

Iron Man is a possibility. Science is already building exo-skeletons. Building one that is as sophisticated and complex as Tony's is a near future possibility.

[cbrachyrhynchos]

Building one that can magically generate that kind of acceleration with a power source that has that kind of energy density is an impossibility ...

... much less do so without giving Tony a lethal concussion. You can't put padding on the inside of a person's skull.

[cbrachyrhynchos]

Hard sci fi will often provide specific details: numbers, angles, sizes, trajectory speeds, ect, and if you do the math and study the specific details given they will all make complete sense in terms of math and science.

Except that it doesn't. Asimov got it wrong, but he wasn't even trying to describe robots except as a literary plot device. Niven got it wrong, demanding unobtainium, FTL, and magic propulsion systems for Ringworlds to work.

[(Anonymous)]

I stand corrected! My intro to hard sci fi was Niven, and I never realized he was wrong in Ringworld (though I do remember there were things he corrected after publishing it) and of course there's things that there's very little actual science fact on too, coming to think of it, like I don't know how biologically sound the Moteys from The Mote in God's Eye are are.