Is this Sci-fi system good at some-what relating to real science?


Active Member
Jan 12, 2021
It would be statements such as this...

that make me wonder how well read you are on this subject, this genre. These in @DLCroix 's post are not that young..
Also you should read my book.
It makes use of waves and particles and massive sentient creatures in space for the science and doesn't really sound all that far from yours.
I started writing this story in the 1970's and picked it up again in 2000 and published it first in 2012.

However my story is not about the science it's about the main character who is a cloned person fighting against prejudice against cloning and dealing with an peculiar identity problem that all intersects with the strange science. There are two places that the science is 'explained' demonstrating that it is mostly theoretical even to the scientists but also because the MC is a snotty know-it-all who hasn't learned to control her impulses when people challenge her. She explains it differently each time; because the people asking are different and have triggered her reaction somewhat differently.

As some have said--you need to start writing.

Honestly for some reason--to me--the OP sounds like the usual; I've got this great idea--what do you think of it?
What I think doesn't matter until you write the real story that goes around it.

Honestly I'm not sure that it's important that the reader totally understand it--in fact you may want to avoid making too understandable because then it will just be easily proven to have many weak points in the science. Unless you have maths: Equations rule. Otherwise fuziness might be best. Then the worst that can be said is, 'The Science is inscrutable.'
Famous words from my favorite review.
Read my reply to @The Judge.
And adding to what I said in that reply: If I had trouble writing characters or plot, I would be asking advice on that. I don't. I have trouble writing the setting. Why is it that people act like the setting is not important? I understand characters are more important. But that doesn't mean the setting isn't. Or tone. Or world building for that matter. I've been writing the story for a long time now. But people keep saying: "Just go write it." I've been RE-writing it in tons of rewrites. And the problem I always had was the setting was terrible because The worldbuilding never made sense which then made the tone off. The fact that people are saying that the system I made works well puts a huge relief on my shoulders because that means that I succeeded in making a setting. And this setting that we were talking about right now, was one of the hardest things for me to get right. FYI I usually don't need help from people on how to write. I only ask when I genuinely have no clue.


Dec 10, 2012
x² + y² = r²:when x~∞
I wouldn't call the science setting.
Sure the science explains how the setting exists; however it also says that the setting is an illusion to some extent and can be what ever the illusionist wants it to be.

And I don't think anyone is trying to minimize the importance of setting.
Writing the story will help you start to see how the setting works and you can explain the science to it some time later.

We can't tell you how to make your setting because you admit you haven't told us the whole science.

Only you can do that. So get at it. You are the illusionist.

Sometimes you have to jump in with both feet and see how things work out.

Come back in with your actual setting written out and put it in critique.

Philip K. Dick was one of the masters of unreal realities and you should look into his work.
It really sounds like you are not well read in this area.
Last edited:


Well-Known Member
Jul 9, 2020
do you also season your chicken with Descartes?

Well, while I look out the window where and in what they are Lulu is with Dartagnan (Lulu is a German shepherd dog; "Darty" is the cat), I look at my cell phone to make sure that no villain is counting my youngest daughter; the oldest is a boy, no problem, I also have the TV on in the dining room, the laptop with which I post and send my literary tricks with you and, well, the chicken in the oven, so yes, I am a 4WD mom multi-target with eyes in hundreds of parts at once. :ninja:

I am coming to the same conclusion. The problems with worldbuilding make me think of a clear symptom of lack of reading, since, finally, by imitation system, a person as he reads says: "ah, he noticed this detail", or "ah, He did it this way or that, how ingenious! " and then obviously he transfers it to his writing. Later, the fruit of a maturity that is obvious after one reading and another, that same person already has an arsenal of tricks, his associative matrix is much larger since he can mix Pérez Reverte with H. Melville, Lovecraft, Bradbury, Gibson , etc., and it is no longer so easy to identify an influence, he has become a writer. But still, he goes on and on, he perseveres.
Last edited: