Posted by: Stiffler January 12, 2012
Login in to Rate this Post:
1 
? 
Liked by
?
Liked by
Some of us write good stories, some of us find items to criticize. I am doing the latter as I find that more entertaining.
____ Writing a science fiction could be tricky. You really have to have a good grasp of subject matter to handle it well. Like Cacophonyx pointed out, lightyears is a measure of distance not time, as many people confuse between them. I saw your justification but I don't know how you can justify this statement that you put: "We will be able to confirm it after 0.1 light years."
I know I am spoiling your otherwise interesting story here but if you don't mind I will present some facts that will invalidate your story:
1. Scientists say O2 content hasn’t varied too much and in fact it used to be lower than what it is today, not higher; because of too much CO2 and Nitrogen. Some even claim that it was rather around 15 % around Mesozoic era.
2. You say after O2 reaches 21% atmospheric fire dies down. Scientists claim that the atmosphere can sustain fire until 15% O2 which is a more conservative value than previously estimated (10%).
I am sure there are other fallacies (like how did they travel faster than light) there but I wanted to point out the non-obvious ones. This might help you get better on your stories, it sure helped me brush up my memories.
I know it’s just a fiction, but wouldn’t it be more interesting if it stays within the realm of possibility and valid assumptions? Anyway, I find the story interesting so please continue. I will try not to annoy you with facts again.
____ Writing a science fiction could be tricky. You really have to have a good grasp of subject matter to handle it well. Like Cacophonyx pointed out, lightyears is a measure of distance not time, as many people confuse between them. I saw your justification but I don't know how you can justify this statement that you put: "We will be able to confirm it after 0.1 light years."
I know I am spoiling your otherwise interesting story here but if you don't mind I will present some facts that will invalidate your story:
1. Scientists say O2 content hasn’t varied too much and in fact it used to be lower than what it is today, not higher; because of too much CO2 and Nitrogen. Some even claim that it was rather around 15 % around Mesozoic era.
2. You say after O2 reaches 21% atmospheric fire dies down. Scientists claim that the atmosphere can sustain fire until 15% O2 which is a more conservative value than previously estimated (10%).
I am sure there are other fallacies (like how did they travel faster than light) there but I wanted to point out the non-obvious ones. This might help you get better on your stories, it sure helped me brush up my memories.
I know it’s just a fiction, but wouldn’t it be more interesting if it stays within the realm of possibility and valid assumptions? Anyway, I find the story interesting so please continue. I will try not to annoy you with facts again.