Who predicted integrated circuits in science fiction?

What you are describing aren’t facts. You are describing your own dogma and ideology. You believe predictions of the future are just random or accidents. Let it be. It is your oppinion. That way, there is no way we have a ballanced talking on the topic of why some people describe the future so well.

It would be interesting to read your sources.

Indeed. That part is fantasious, but at least he predicted retrorockets.

Yes, I remember Thunderbird’s satellites and its human opperators :smiley:

Yes, it was in Space Cadet and not in Spaceship Gallileo… :smack:

Now, the idea of cell phones has been around since the invention of the radio. There is a picture somewhere of portable phones around the year 1900.

Yes, they are opinions. But they are informed opinions.

The point that my professor was trying to make was not that he was 500 times smarter than us - as my freshman ears perceived - but that he had done the hard, long, slogging, often boring work that would turn his opinions into informed opinions. I now count that the single most valuable piece of advice I received in college.

I’m passing it forward.

In that case, I would like to see the evidence. Books? Research? links? That would be interesting. I am always willing to learn something new.

Thanks.

To be fair, we don’t know how long the Martian cannon was, nor the g-tolerance of Martians, and they did have a smaller planet to launch from. So it’s possible that it might have worked for them.

They landed on earth without benefit of retro-rockets, splatting down under earth’s gravity. Unless it’s a really long cannon, I don’t think you’d have much success launching humans from Mars without damage. And, although he describes the Martian skin as like leather, wells’ description of the Martians makes them out to be blobby and not all that tough, laboring under the greater force of Earth’s gravity.

I still call special pleading – shooting martians from guns (and having them land without benefit of rocket or parachute) seems like it’d likely be fatal.
Edited to add: Mars escape velocity is about 1/2 of Earth’s. Still pretty significant:

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/marsfact.html

Certainly, but it also certainly doesn’t count as a successful prediction. I suspect he also knew that “To the Sun/Off on a Comet” was not plausible either. (If he had thought, he could have written “A Pail of Air” nearly a century before Leiber did. )

Didn’t “Things to Come” end just as they were launching the moon expedition? Maybe the words after the closing credits were “Oh, shit.” :slight_smile: Lang had the advantage of a good set of rocketry advisers also. I don’t know if you’ve had a chance to read Willy Ley’s description of how they were involved with Lang and the movie.

That’s a book I wasn’t aware of, thanks.

You have to think there was something else involved beyond what the narrator said, since I doubt it is likely that many of the Martians would have hit Earth at all in a free trajectory without course corrections. Unless more Martians were stuck in solar orbit than ever arrived, they must have had some maneuvering capability.

I never said it was. I don’t anyone ever did. There are claims that an awful lot of Verne’s descriptions match reality uncannily well, but I don’t think anyone took his Gun Launching as a serious prediction.
I agree that it’d make a whole lot more sense if the Martians had course-correction capabilities, but Wells doesn’t give any indication of that. The ships are observed from Earth en route, and he never describes any suggestion of course corrections. I think he would have, if he thought it necessary. I suspect he never really considered the extreme difficulty of sending ships across space and through gravity wells. In Wells’ mind, it appears that the Martian trip was an exercise in really precise ballistics, rather than rocketry.

I have, and I’ve seen the film. It looks as if the Germans just built a moon rocket and simply filmed the results – it’s pretty impressive.
wells disdained the German approach. He didn’t care for Metropolis, but, for my money, Metropolis is a more watchable film with better effects. wells certainly could have had good technical advice – there was a British rocketry society, too, after all. But he apparently didn’t take advantage.

I see it as the Narrator not understanding how the Martians did it. I doubt they had the capability to note small course corrections anyhow.

In fact, they used an electrical anti-gravity spacedrive in Edison’s Conquest of Mars.

It all depends on whether you’re asking What Really Happened or Retconning . You pays your money and you takes your point of view.

Very interesting. When it is expected to exist a cable strong enough to try a space elevator?

With respect to laser propulsion, I know it is an impractical dream for now, at least from the economical point of view.

I wish there were a standard canon or curriculum. The only advice I have is to read Everything.

By Everything I mean you have to go beyond science fiction or those proto-science fiction stories you mentioned. Utopias and dystopias were more numerous and sometimes more popular. There was a vogue in Europe before WWI for novels that depicted Germany or Russia declaring war on France or Britain. Dime novels had engineering heroes and those spread to pulp magazines and children’s books like Tom Swift. Most magazines printed stories, satires, parodies, and romances that riffed on the current world.

Then there’s all the science. Popular science has been written since forever, and there are hundreds of early books. Wells wrote far more nonfiction extrapolation than fiction extrapolation. Every scientist, inventor, industrialist, and innovator was interviewed for every magazine. Gernsback himself started some of the first 20th century science magazines, although Scientific American had been around since the 1850s. Popular Science has all its issues searchable online.

But you can’t limit it to science or inventions. They exist in a world. So all of sociology and the soft sciences. Food, diet, medicine, population, immigration, communication, transportation, economics, political systems, architecture. Entertainment and art and culture, too.

One place to find these concentrated are in the World’s Fairs, which served to bring together all the latest devices and technologies and peoples from around the world. There were around two dozen major ones and hundreds of minor fairs and while there are lots of websites, they’ve barely been scratched as a subject.

Or, just look out your window at the complexities of the world today. Everything in that world is a possible subject. That’s overwhelming. But the world was just as complex in the past. And there’s far more past. No straight lines exist from all those pasts to today. It’s like investigating all the seaweed in the ocean. Finding a beginning and finding an end doesn’t imply that the middles meet.

Yes, I know it. I have been searching for that information all my life, as you have done.

I have found that many predictions are far off, but that some people is more accurate than others. I also found out that the better informed about science a technology a predictor is, the chances of making a good prediction is better.

My conclusion? Every person can have a glipse of the future if research the topic he/she is going to foresee with caution and precision. It is not magical or supernatural at all. The only danger in predictions is when fantasy (the mad of the house) interfiere.

Of course, you can’t foresee random events, like what will be the number than wins the lotto, but you can predict with a degree of certainty many other events. You can’t predict, either, some accidental events, such as a nuclear terror attack, WW III, or an allien invasion… But besides that, many political, economical but particularly technical changes are predictable.

“The Martians seem to have calculated their descent with amazing subtlety–their mathematical learning is evidently far in excess of ours” -War of the Worlds, Chapter One.

Nobody knows. It has to wait until someone invents a material strong enough to create the cable.

Actually, it is the strength vs. weight ratio that is critical. We have cables strong enough, they are just too heavy – their own weight breaks them in a cable long enough to reach space.

The last I heard, they were looking at biological systems to find a way to make such a material. I think that spider webs would actually work, if they could find a way to scale them up to make a space elevator cable. Or if they could figure out how they work, and how to manufacture a cable that way. I’ve no idea how that research is going.

Yes. I suspected that. The Space elevator needs a technological breakthrought to be achievable: resistent cables. By comparison, laser propulsion is feasible today, only that it is so expensive nobody will invest on it.

Again, carbon nanofiber is strong and light enough, moreso than spider silk. Currently, we can make it in lengths of a few centimeters, so obviously, we’ve got some scaling up to do.