Remove ads

A Golden Island To The West — California ISOT from 2018 to 1850

Reader mode
I wonder how the scientists and hobbiest intellectuals of the world are reacting to the unfathomable wealth of knowledge and answers being dumped into their laps. It's got to be one hell of an exciting time to be alive for them.

Stuff like the size of the universe, or what it looks like from the surface of Venus. The Pale Blue Dot image, and Carl Sagan's speech. PTSD, and how to treat it. The revelation of genetics, and how nurture matters just as much as nature. Economic theory, the existence of the UN, the collapse of colonialism, etc.

Quantum mechanics, flight mechanics, sociology, and so much more.
 
SaltyWaffles said:
I wonder how the scientists and hobbiest intellectuals of the world are reacting to the unfathomable wealth of knowledge and answers being dumped into their laps. It's got to be one hell of an exciting time to be alive for them.

Stuff like the size of the universe, or what it looks like from the surface of Venus. The Pale Blue Dot image, and Carl Sagan's speech. PTSD, and how to treat it. The revelation of genetics, and how nurture matters just as much as nature. Economic theory, the existence of the UN, the collapse of colonialism, etc.

Quantum mechanics, flight mechanics, sociology, and so much more.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
There is also the big elephant of nuclear physics and it's insane outcomes with it using equation E=mc^2 for its energy output instead of other output equations for other types of reactions.
 
Last edited:
FailLord said:
There is also the big elephant of nuclear physics and it's insane outcomes with it using equation E=mc^2 for its energy output instead of other output equations for other types of reactions.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Not to put too fine a point on it, but there is just no way downtimers are going to understand nuclear physics without years of reeducation in California. I mean, the basics? Splitting atoms = lots of energy? Sure. Anything beyond that? its going to take years. Any sort of practical application will be years if not decades out, and that assumes that CA doesn't try to restrict nuclear science from getting out.

I mean, the most advanced explosive of the period is black powder. Dynamite won't be invented for another decade (though that might speed up now). Any sort of nuclear explosive? So far beyond them they might find it easier and safer to try and start a space program!
 
Last edited:
Midnighter13 said:
Not to put too fine a point on it, but there is just no way downtimers are going to understand nuclear physics without years of reeducation in California. I mean, the basics? Splitting atoms = lots of energy? Sure. Anything beyond that? its going to take years. Any sort of practical application will be years if not decades out, and that assumes that CA doesn't try to restrict nuclear science from getting out.

I mean, the most advanced explosive of the period is black powder. Dynamite won't be invented for another decade (though that might speed up now). Any sort of nuclear explosive? So far beyond them they might find it easier and safer to try and start a space program!
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Nitroglycerin was a thing by this point and dynamite is just stuff soaked in it, but otherwise, yeah. I don't see trying to restrict the basic physics stuff that you can learn about from any number of textbooks as being a thing. There really isn't a need to try to withhold scientific knowledge either. Applying them to destructive ends is gonna be decades away at least. On the other hand, spreading technologies like X-Ray machines will help save lives, and the dangers of them require some fairly high level physics to properly explain.
 
Speaking of, would the Nobel prize still be a thing considering how dynamite hasn't been invented yet?

The prize was pretty much backed solely on the interest made from of Alfred's fortune after he kicked it but considering how CA should have the recipe dynamite might not be the moneymaker it was OTL.
 
Last edited:
ComissarPancakes said:
Speaking of, would the Nobel prize still be a thing considering how dynamite hasn't been invented yet?

The prize was pretty much backed solely on the interest made from of Alfred's fortune after he kicked it but considering how CA should have the recipe dynamite might not be the moneymaker it was OTL.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Nah, it can totally still be a thing.

Just needs the entire ceremony to be carried out without sound levels of over 10 dB anywhere in the room. There would be... no Bel of sound...
...Oh wait, that's only suitable for the Nobel in Physics, and maybe the Nobel Peace Prize (silence and peace are related). Hold on while I come up with suitable puns for medicine or chemistry... EDIT: This may take a while...
 
Last edited:
Midnighter13 said:
restrict nuclear science from getting out.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
That's essentially impossible, really when you also want to have a developed and globalized world. Nuclear arms are not restricted by knowledge. Want anyone other than Cali scientists to understand anything about physics or chemistry, and therefore biology, metallurgy, biochemistry, engineering, blah blah blah? Nuclear science is getting out. It's a fundamental science that is a necessary part of all science. Nuclear arms are not restricted by knowledge, they're restricted by availability and relative scarcity of material.
 
I feel like modern birth control methods are more likely to spark massive cultural or religious turmoil than vaccinations or nuclear physics.
 
pbluekan said:
That's essentially impossible, really when you also want to have a developed and globalized world. Nuclear arms are not restricted by knowledge. Want anyone other than Cali scientists to understand anything about physics or chemistry, and therefore biology, metallurgy, biochemistry, engineering, blah blah blah? Nuclear science is getting out. It's a fundamental science that is a necessary part of all science. Nuclear arms are not restricted by knowledge, they're restricted by availability and relative scarcity of material.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Restrict technical know how about reactors, rather than theoretical knowledge. I doubt most of the world has the technical skill to reproduce the needed parts anyway, even if they have the shiny rocks.
 
Neruz said:
I feel like modern birth control methods are more likely to spark massive cultural or religious turmoil than vaccinations or nuclear physics.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Well, that and sterile childbirth keeping so many kids/mothers from dying. But yes I think it was mentioned how underground branches of Planned Parenthood may get the Establishment (medical and otherwise) up in arms.
 
ComissarPancakes said:
Speaking of, would the Nobel prize still be a thing considering how dynamite hasn't been invented yet?

The prize was pretty much backed solely on the interest made from of Alfred's fortune after he kicked it but considering how CA should have the recipe dynamite might not be the moneymaker it was OTL.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Honestly, the Noble Prize would probably be met with gales of laughter downtime given that at this time the family is mostly known for building and selling weapons to the Russians.
 
Midnighter13 said:
Not to put too fine a point on it, but there is just no way downtimers are going to understand nuclear physics without years of reeducation in California. I mean, the basics? Splitting atoms = lots of energy? Sure. Anything beyond that? its going to take years. Any sort of practical application will be years if not decades out, and that assumes that CA doesn't try to restrict nuclear science from getting out.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Rutherford's device for splitting atoms fit on a desk. Its that simple.
Only thing really blocking anyone from building a light water reactor is availability of fuel, which takes a lot of time and resources to prepare (enriching) without automation.
Heavy water reactors on the other hand, can use natural uranium (not-enriched).
There is another way though...

Nyvis said:
Restrict technical know how about reactors, rather than theoretical knowledge. I doubt most of the world has the technical skill to reproduce the needed parts anyway, even if they have the shiny rocks.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
First nuclear reactors were basically made out of graphite bricks, natural uranium, and had the fuel inserted by way of wooden sticks by a human.
The only thing that really changed in reactor design since then is that the fuel and moderators have changed shape and are submerged in water. The basic principle of sliding one next to the other (fuel/moderator) has not changed since 1942 Chicago Pile 1.

Its at this very basic level that countries can make medical equipment for national hospitals by irradiating elements, or make certain wafers for electronics. They can also irradiate strips of aluminium to drop on enemies and have them die in a slow gruesome way...
 
Nyvis said:
Restrict technical know how about reactors, rather than theoretical knowledge. I doubt most of the world has the technical skill to reproduce the needed parts anyway, even if they have the shiny rocks.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It's still gonna get out, or someone else will develop it, because it's a basic extension of the physics of the process. I figured I wouldn't have to repeat myself when I say that you literally cannot restrict the knowledge. The only thing you can do is restrict the material.

Why do you want to restrict reactor development? With the efficiency and ease of manufacture of solar and wind those will catch on faster anyway, but nuclear power is still completely carbon free and if it's done sensibly, there is very little risk.

Chemical weapons are a different story. They're essentially impossible to control so long as someone understands the basics of organic chemistry.

I think at a certain level, Cali's people (and you guys) need to understand that with future knowledge comes a really heavy price.
 
pbluekan said:
It's still gonna get out, or someone else will develop it, because it's a basic extension of the physics of the process. I figured I wouldn't have to repeat myself when I say that you literally cannot restrict the knowledge. The only thing you can do is restrict the material.

Why do you want to restrict reactor development? With the efficiency and ease of manufacture of solar and wind those will catch on faster anyway, but nuclear power is still completely carbon free and if it's done sensibly, there is very little risk.

Chemical weapons are a different story. They're essentially impossible to control so long as someone understands the basics of organic chemistry.

I think at a certain level, Cali's people (and you guys) need to understand that with future knowledge comes a really heavy price.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

You cannot restrict knowledge, but the technical know how and setup to do it safely is pretty large. People will see the "free energy" label and ignore the bucketload of safety ones. And there is no regulatory organism to ensure it is done sensibly, or that the waste is disposed properly. Carbon free doesn't mean clean. I'm not against nuclear in responsible modern states, but it is quite worrying when handed to people who haven't faced the risks and haven't been bombarded with information raising awareness about them. Reactors are also a gateway to enrichment.

As for renewable... Solar isn't easy. Solar panels definitely aren't cheap, and rely on techniques we use for electronics production people would have to develop the infrastructure for from the ground up. Wind is a lot easier to reach, but it still requires a lot of metal of good quality. And it still suffers from the bane of renewables, being dependent on the weather. No, I think the real bread maker is going to be hydroelectric. A lot of the prime spots we already used today are still untapped.
 
Nyvis said:
No, I think the real bread maker is going to be hydroelectric. A lot of the prime spots we already used today are still untapped.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Hydroelectricity is terrible for fish though, even if you manage to get the locals to build adequate fish ladders the attrition toll on juveniles coming downstream is still enormous if they're unfortunate enough to pass through the turbines.
And then there's what happens to the fertility of the land downriver in the case of the Nile.
 
Guardian54 said:
Hydroelectricity is terrible for fish though, even if you manage to get the locals to build adequate fish ladders the attrition toll on juveniles coming downstream is still enormous if they're unfortunate enough to pass through the turbines.
And then there's what happens to the fertility of the land downriver in the case of the Nile.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Like they would care about the ecological damage in 1850 society.

Nile style dams are kinda a modern exception. You usually don't block large main rivers. You block smaller tributaries going down mountains so that you can make use of the altitude valleys for water pressure. The Aswan and Three Gorges dam aren't really the common model. And honestly bad investment. If you look at Europe, you'll see a lot of smallish dams in medium to high altitude, not monstrosities blocking large rivers and causing massive messes.

Altitude dams can also be used to smooth the issues of other renewables by pumping up water when you have excess energy and drawing power from them when you need more.
 
Nyvis said:
Like they would care about the ecological damage in 1850 society.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

"So I built a dam downstream of my land. Now I can't fish by my manor for relaxation anymore"--some complaining noble who then buys a little land besides the dam to build a fish ladder so he can fish again.

Also, Europa Universalis 4 has the flavour text for the trade good Fish say that it's one of the most basic foods. This is for good reason. The world will start thinking of national health as a matter of national security very soon once they get wind of WWII recruitment offices having a hard time finding men who meet their physical requirements after the Great Depression. And part of national health is going to be food.

Nyvis said:
You block smaller tributaries going down mountains so that you can make use of the altitude valleys for water pressure.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

This is agreeable, but how long do you think it'll take for some over-blingy noble idiot (cough Romanovs cough) to try to dam some main rivers?
 
Guardian54 said:
Also, Europa Universalis 4 has the flavour text for the trade good Fish say that it's one of the most basic foods. This is for good reason. The world will start thinking of national health as a matter of national security very soon once they get wind of WWII recruitment offices having a hard time finding men who meet their physical requirements after the Great Depression. And part of national health is going to be food.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Fish as a basic food source means ocean fish. Mostly from the massive fish banks discovered in North America. River fish isn't really relevant.

Guardian54 said:
This is agreeable, but how long do you think it'll take for some over-blingy noble idiot (cough Romanovs cough) to try to dam some main rivers?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

They'll probably see the price tag and engineering requirement on the big dams and never finish the project.
 
kaazmiz said:
No. In Europe freshwater fish were as important as grains. Dried and salted fish could be stored for more than 12 months at good conditions.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Were in a very much past sense.

Freshwater fish haven't been a staple diet for a majority of the population since the early years of the 19th century. There just isn't the space for them to accumulate in large numbers and farming them isn't nearly as feasible as it is in the ocean.

Sure, it might be the staple diet of a few villages, but for any discussion it just isn't relevant.
 
Nyvis said:
River fish isn't really relevant.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

pbluekan said:
Were in a very much past sense.

Freshwater fish haven't been a staple diet for a majority of the population since the early years of the 19th century. There just isn't the space for them to accumulate in large numbers and farming them isn't nearly as feasible as it is in the ocean.

Sure, it might be the staple diet of a few villages, but for any discussion it just isn't relevant.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

My computer crashed and had to reboot...

Chinook salmon - Wikipedia
You know how badly the various Columbia river dams fucked up the salmon population? Yeah... that's a problem. A big problem. There are quite a few valuable saltwater fish species that spawn far upstream in rivers.

And if you claim river fish isn't relevant in Europe (let alone North America), well, you might want to consider the fact that people aren't going to care about heavy metal contamination or other stuff when they're starving. And since carp was well known as edible in Shakespeare's time...
A river in a less absurdly over-fed country would not have anywhere near this magnitude of invasive fish problem. Kind of like how whenever I look out at the pigeons in my backyard I think "if this was China they'd all have been eaten already".
 
Last edited:
kaazmiz said:
No. In Europe freshwater fish were as important as grains. Dried and salted fish could be stored for more than 12 months at good conditions.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

In 1850? I have doubts. From what I know, the large scale exploitation of fish was done at sea.

Guardian54 said:
Chinook salmon - Wikipedia
You know how badly the various Columbia river dams fucked up the salmon population? Yeah... that's a problem. A big problem. There are quite a few valuable saltwater fish species that spawn far upstream in rivers.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Fucking up saltwater fish reproduction is much more likely yeah. It would be a good idea to check if salmons use a river before setting up a dam.
 
Last edited:
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top