"Neutronium"

[Emelio Lizardo]

"Neutronium"

Why does every SF video game propose to use this stuff? Well, probably because of the Star Trek (TOS) episode that had a "Beserker" type ship made of it. But it really can't exist outside of a neutron star. A chunk of "neutronium" outside the gravity well of the star would rapidly, and spectacularly, dissolve. I don't think there is even a theory on how to contain this crap.

And if it were somehow kept from doing this, being surrounded by it would be like being surrounded by the condensed material a a star. Everything would so rapidly become 'one' with the 'neutronium' that there probably isn't a applicable measure of time to describe it.

You've no concept (and I don't either) of how dense this stuff is and it's effect on anything normal that would be near it.

It's not like some unreactive impenitrable lead. It's activly nasty in a way that puts to shame nasty. The only thing more frightening in the universe is a singularity.

Please find a different name for whatever material is necessary to be impressive armor. Like regular steel and Krupt Steel.

[Emelio Lizardo]

It's a specific issue and exemplerary of broader issues.

I suppose that exciting multiple strangers is an accomplishment of sorts. Certainly an improvement to their otherwise pointless lives.

[Malvastor]

Първоначално публикувано от Emelio Lizardo:

Even if I am nitpicking on Neutronium, it as exemplary of the issues of misuse of terms and plausability. Not to ignor other issues.

Again, yes, it's not a hard sci game, but that doesn't mean that everything goes. A six shooter still should behave like a six shooter.

Yes. Because six-shooters are defined things. We have them. We can make them. We know every inch of what they can and can't do. Neutronium is not a defined thing. We do not have any of it. We cannot make it. We don't know a single thing about it. We don't even really know if it exists. It's pretty much entirely theoretical. So making a big deal about how a game's portrayal of it is inaccurate make about as much sense as me complaining that Tolkien got the properties of mithril totally wrong.

Първоначално публикувано от Emelio Lizardo:

The limitations of space define the game as being different than, let's say, the environment of EU4. Now if armies can suddenly swim without boats and despite fleet blockades we'd see objections aplenty.

Again, more importantly, is the avoidence of the Harry Potter, or Post-Modernist, methodology of solving problems: make ♥♥♥♥ up.

Not really. This is sci-fi; the entire genre literally begins with making stuff up. As long as it's internally consistent- or as long as its internal inconsistencies don't make the story nonsensical- it's all good. This is true of literally every single work of science fiction, because other wise it's not science "fiction", just a really technical work.

[Emelio Lizardo]

It's science fiction because science is a central plot point. It's fantasy when we just make ♥♥♥♥ up.

Neutronium is well enough known the we know we don't want it as armor or any kind of building material. A suit made of plutonium would be more reasonable.

Now, if God decides to make you a sword of neutronium so you can strap on your rocket back pack and personally attack imperial star crusiers, that I can buy. Because God is more magical than magic.

[paugus]

Първоначално публикувано от Emelio Lizardo:

It's science fiction because science is a central plot point. It's fantasy when we just make ♥♥♥♥ up.

Neutronium is well enough known the we know we don't want it as armor or any kind of building material. A suit made of plutonium would be more reasonable.

Fantasy is a subgenre of speculative fiction and is distinguished from the genres of science fiction and horror by the absence of scientific or macabre themes respectively, though these genres overlap.

You're being purposely inflexible in a desperate attempt to be right. You're not. Neutonium is what you've chosen to arbitrarily take issue with, and you are now well past the point of missing the forest for the trees.

[cooltv27]

Първоначално публикувано от Emelio Lizardo:

Neutronium is well enough known

can you give a source for this? some scientific thing accepcted by the general science community outlining the properties and backing that outline with tests?

[Malvastor]

Първоначално публикувано от Emelio Lizardo:

It's science fiction because science is a central plot point. It's fantasy when we just make ♥♥♥♥ up.

No, it's fantasy when we make crap up and say it works because magic, and science fiction when we make crap up and say it works because science.

[RedShirt]

FTL drives, Psi powers and energy shields... All of the above is featured in nearly any scifi game and none of them has even a hint of beeing possible in real physics. They all belong in the realm of magic.

And you want to talk about known stuff that is missrepresented. Why start with neutronium? Start with plasma. At least we have that on earth.

Scifi is fantasy... in the future. Get over it, lay back and enjoy the ride.

[Aedile]

Lol@OP.
It's funny how you got no issue ith FTL drives, zero point reactors, and ships to which orbital mechanics do not apply whatsoever. Very few sci-fi movies, books or games make even the slightest attempt to even mention orbital mechanics of any sort. Not to mention artiificial gravity, which to top it all you can actually turn off...

Ever wondered why the powerplants which can give the unfatomable energy for the delta v required for sublight travel in the sense seen in most sci-fi, has issues powering the simplest of weapons, such as railguns? Not to mention, that for some reason all your ships tend to use some magical energy pool, which is refilled by power plants, which for some reason are planet based.

Even the so-called hard sci-fi is like 99% fiction, and disregards the most ell known and fundamental things we know about space, that is gravity.

[Twelvefield]

The gravity of this thread has been turned off. Poor watermelons.

[Emelio Lizardo]

Streatching the possible is one thing, magic is quite another.

[paugus]

Първоначално публикувано от Emelio Lizardo:

Streatching the possible is one thing, magic is quite another.

Arguing a point is one thing, being in denial is quite another.

[Emelio Lizardo]

Първоначално публикувано от paugus:

Първоначално публикувано от Emelio Lizardo:

Streatching the possible is one thing, magic is quite another.

Arguing a point is one thing, being in denial is quite another.

Let me know when you've discovered the difference.

[paugus]

Първоначално публикувано от Emelio Lizardo:

Първоначално публикувано от paugus:

Arguing a point is one thing, being in denial is quite another.

Let me know when you've discovered the difference.

It was just now, when I watched you spit in the face of reason while every other person in a six page thread disagreed with you.

[Half Phased]

Първоначално публикувано от Emelio Lizardo:

Streatching the possible is one thing, magic is quite another.

Okay, okay. Neutronium might be implausible, but tell me why you don't care that lasers suffer dispersion in vacuum.

It's one thing we know that shouldn't happen, and unlike Neutronium which nothing is assertive. Hell, we don't even know if neutron stars are completely neutrons. There's hypotheses about whether or not there is a layer of normal matter over the neutrons.

But let's all get worked up over a possibility, rather than an actual fact... OP, either calm down or go yell at John de Lancie for being a magical god-like entity in Star Trek.

[Aedile]

Първоначално публикувано от Emelio Lizardo:

Streatching the possible is one thing, magic is quite another.

Defying gravity is hardly stretching the possible, lol. If you can defy newtonian physics, general relativity, and thermodynamics, you can defy quantum physics just as well.

If a civilisation can deal with all the above issues in some magical way, it's hardly a stretch to assume they can prevent neutrons from decaying to protons. Theorethically an element zero isotope which is stable can exist. Which is far more than you can say about FTL.