"Clan Witherspoon" wrote:
 > Pulp science is my favorite science - does it make sense in our
universe? No.
 > Does it make sense in theirs? Mostly.

I think internal consistency of a background is important for
story-telling. I don't think the universe should be an unreliable narrator.

Sophonts acting on limited information, on the other hand? Go for it.
Exploring the consequences of a conceptual or other breakthrough/discovery?
Classic science fiction fodder (including finding out that the universe
is an unreliable narrator - there's lots of magic is real, or flaws in
maths/physics/other science permit weirdness stories).

But it shouldn't be the theme of every episode of a serial or
role-playing game campaign. Leave 'particle of the week' to Star Trek 8-(

(on fusion plants)
 > Depends on what the handwave is for them.
 > I'll have to think about that, other than using gravity control
 > to make a mini sun smaller than your head.

Yes, Traveller fusion reactors do proton-proton fusion in a
plant far smaller than a star.
Manipulating the strong and weak forces in a small volume with
nuclear dampers is a non-gravitic handwave.
Another less technomagical option could exploit the effects of Schwinger
intensity+ lasers (north of 2x10^29 W/cm^2, quantum physics suggests
that matter and antimatter particles will boil out of the vacuum) to
help the reaction along.

Gravity is terribly weak (10^(-29 to -36)) compared to the other three
forces, so I think 'gravitics' in Traveller is actually marketing speak
for whatever the actual combination of effects are that enable lifters,
thrusters, 'grav plates', etc.

Rob O'Connor
skeptical of the 'gravitics!' handwave