Remote viewing through means other than AWESOME PSI POWERS! in SF
James Nicoll
radiation as a means of detecting remote objects.
Real life example uno: A super-earth found orbiting a red dwarf star
about 40 light years away, detected using an array of small telescopes
on Earth:
http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/news/2009/pr200924.html
Real life example du: A kilometer-wide Kuiper Belt Object detected at
a distance of 45 AU.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7275/abs/nature08608.html
Is there any SF that dwells on the possibilities of exploring remote locations
using cunning methods to squeeze information of the the light, radio and other
EMR that reaches us from the stars?
Actually, I have a dim memory of a thread about star crossed lovers
where the impediment to the romance was that one person was veiwing the
other via EMR at some distance and that by the time the images arrived,
the object of their affection was long dead.
--
http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll
http://www.cafepress.com/jdnicoll (For all your "The problem with
defending the English language [...]" T-shirt, cup and tote-bag needs)
JimboCat
> Specifically, the arcane art of using reflected or refracted electromagnetic
> radiation as a means of detecting remote objects.
Perfect fit, despite its positing a new property of electromagnetic
radiation: /Macroscope/ by Piers Anthony.
Less perfect: the shorter work (novella?) "I See You" by, uh, I always
get this one wrong and can't be buggered to look it up. This
technologically-based viewer is not just a remote-in-space viewer, but
a back-into-the-past viewer, too.
Also, we must mention Niven's /Protector/, where the Brennan-monster
creates a gravitational-lens telescope to search for incoming
ramships.
Jim Deutch (JimboCat)
--
"My parents visited a planet where the life-forms were not bilaterally
symmetrical and all I got was this lousy F-shirt."
Paul Ciszek
In article <f106b908-d3c9-4ae4...@21g2000vbh.googlegroups.com>,
JimboCat <10313...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>
>Less perfect: the shorter work (novella?) "I See You" by, uh, I always
>get this one wrong and can't be buggered to look it up. This
>technologically-based viewer is not just a remote-in-space viewer, but
>a back-into-the-past viewer, too.
All remote-in-space viewers are back-into-the-past viewers.
--
Please reply to: | "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is
pciszek at panix dot com | indistinguishable from malice."
Autoreply is disabled |
alie...@gmail.com
> On Dec 17, 12:07 pm, jdnic...@panix.com (James Nicoll) wrote:
>
> > Specifically, the arcane art of using reflected or refracted electromagnetic
> > radiation as a means of detecting remote objects.
>
> Perfect fit, despite its positing a new property of electromagnetic
> radiation: /Macroscope/ by Piers Anthony.
>
> Less perfect: the shorter work (novella?) "I See You" by, uh, I always
> get this one wrong and can't be buggered to look it up. This
> technologically-based viewer is not just a remote-in-space viewer, but
> a back-into-the-past viewer, too.
Remote in space and time, past and present. Damon Knight. Please
remember this and DON'T MAKE ME LOOK IT UP AGAIN because the first
thirty or so Google hits for "science fiction" +"i see you" rendered
the useles^H^Hfascinating information that some silly songstress
trills a tune with that name in "Avatar". Gah.
The idea was also used in the really scary 1963 O.B.I.T. episode of
the B&W TV series Outer Limits. It's on Hulu.
> Also, we must mention Niven's /Protector/, where the Brennan-monster
> creates a gravitational-lens telescope to search for incoming
> ramships.
I can't think of any story uses of wormholes as strictly remote-
viewing devices OTOMH, which is worrisome; it's terribly obvious.
Mark L. Fergerson
Wayne Throop
: Remote in space and time, past and present. Damon Knight. Please
: remember this and DON'T MAKE ME LOOK IT UP AGAIN because the first
: thirty or so Google hits for "science fiction" +"i see you" rendered
: the useles^H^Hfascinating information that some silly songstress
: trills a tune with that name in "Avatar". Gah.
isfdb sez
A search for i see you found 7 matches
Title Type Variant Year Authors
I See You SHORTFICTION 1976 Damon Knight
I See You SHORTFICTION Variant 1959 Harry Harrison
I See You Never SHORTFICTION 1947 Ray Bradbury
Peek! I See You SHORTFICTION Variant 1968 Poul Anderson
Peek! I See You! SHORTFICTION 1968 Poul Anderson
The More I See You NOVEL 1999 Lynn Kurland
When I See You Again SHORTFICTION 1994 C. S. Fuqua
Very zimple, very eazy.
( Sadly, searching for '"i see you" isfdb' on google
doesn't find the correct one. Hmpf. )
Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
alie...@gmail.com
> : "n...@bid.nes" <alien8...@gmail.com>
> : Remote in space and time, past and present. Damon Knight. Please
> : remember this and DON'T MAKE ME LOOK IT UP AGAIN because the first
> : thirty or so Google hits for "science fiction" +"i see you" rendered
> : the useles^H^Hfascinating information that some silly songstress
> : trills a tune with that name in "Avatar". Gah.
>
> isfdb sez
>
> A search for i see you found 7 matches
>
> Title Type Variant Year Authors
> I See You SHORTFICTION 1976 Damon Knight
> I See You SHORTFICTION Variant 1959 Harry Harrison
> I See You Never SHORTFICTION 1947 Ray Bradbury
> Peek! I See You SHORTFICTION Variant 1968 Poul Anderson
> Peek! I See You! SHORTFICTION 1968 Poul Anderson
> The More I See You NOVEL 1999 Lynn Kurland
> When I See You Again SHORTFICTION 1994 C. S. Fuqua
>
> Very zimple, very eazy.
Maybe, but my more intuitive approach (read "total shot in the
dark") actually got me a site with a capsule review.
> ( Sadly, searching for '"i see you" isfdb' on google
> doesn't find the correct one. Hmpf. )
It does now, but it isn't the first hit, it's the third. First two
are "I See You Never" and "Peek! I See You!". I donut geddit.
In a scary bit of universe-reading-over-its-own-shoulder irony the
eighth google hit is one of James Nicoll's Livejournal pages:
http://james-nicoll.livejournal.com/2168474.html
I'm not familiar with the sf database; I'm not seeing capsule
descriptions anywhere. How does one tell which is the right one if one
doesn't already know?
Mark L. Fergerson
Wayne Throop
:: the correct one. Hmpf. )
: "nu...@bid.nes" <alie...@gmail.com>
: It does now, but it isn't the first hit, it's the third. First two
: are "I See You Never" and "Peek! I See You!". I donut geddit.
But the third is to the 1959 Harry Harrison short story, not the
1976 Damon Knight short story. The Damon Knight one doesn't appear.
: I'm not familiar with the sf database; I'm not seeing capsule
: descriptions anywhere. How does one tell which is the right one if
: one doesn't already know?
True, that's an annoying limitation. But once you know there are
two, you google for '"i see you" damon knight synopsis'and
'"i see you" harry harrison synopsis'. The former finds
http://ebooks.ebookmall.com/title/i-see-you-knight-ebooks.htm
A machine is invented that can view any person, place, or thing at
any time in the past or present anywhere in the universe. The
implications for politics, personal privacy, crime and punishment,
space exploration, and historical research are mind-boggling and
brilliantly explored in this short story.
vs the latter finding a one-liner describing it as "Robot Justice", and some
other indications, such as it being collected with other robot stories
in various anthologies.
David DeLaney
>JimboCat <103134.3...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>> Also, we must mention Niven's /Protector/, where the Brennan-monster
>> creates a gravitational-lens telescope to search for incoming ramships.
>
> I can't think of any story uses of wormholes as strictly remote-
>viewing devices OTOMH, which is worrisome; it's terribly obvious.
The rewritten version of Light of Other Days, by Clarke & Baxter.
Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
David Mitchell
> Specifically, the arcane art of using reflected or refracted
> electromagnetic radiation as a means of detecting remote objects.
Didn't Baxter use gravitational lensing via the Sun in one of his
_Manifold_ books?
--
=======================================================================
= David --- If you use Microsoft products, you will, inevitably, get
= Mitchell --- viruses, so please don't add me to your address book.
=======================================================================
Jack Bohn
>Specifically, the arcane art of using reflected or refracted electromagnetic
>radiation as a means of detecting remote objects.
My first thought was the "eavesdropping ray" from Ray Cummings's
1931 _Brigands of the Moon_.
http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/19066
(Searching the story for "ray," it's interesting how often he
uses "gray","pray", and "betray".)
It's more formally called a Benson curve light projector, and it
bends light around corners, apparently doing so from the source!
--
-Jack
Michael Stemper
>In article <f106b908-d3c9-4ae4...@21g2000vbh.googlegroups.com>, JimboCat <10313...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>>Less perfect: the shorter work (novella?) "I See You" by, uh, I always
>>get this one wrong and can't be buggered to look it up. This
>>technologically-based viewer is not just a remote-in-space viewer, but
>>a back-into-the-past viewer, too.
>
>All remote-in-space viewers are back-into-the-past viewers.
Which was used in Smith's _Skylark Three_ to track a space shipt that
had been launched shortly before the destruction of the home planet of
the Fenachrone.
--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him talk like Mr. Ed
by rubbing peanut butter on his gums.
Default User
> On Dec 17, 9:58�am, JimboCat <103134.3...@compuserve.com> wrote:
> > Less perfect: the shorter work (novella?) "I See You" by, uh, I
> > always get this one wrong and can't be buggered to look it up. This
> > technologically-based viewer is not just a remote-in-space viewer,
> > but a back-into-the-past viewer, too.
>
> Remote in space and time, past and present. Damon Knight. Please
> remember this and DON'T MAKE ME LOOK IT UP AGAIN because the first
> thirty or so Google hits for "science fiction" +"i see you" rendered
> the useles^H^Hfascinating information that some silly songstress
> trills a tune with that name in "Avatar". Gah.
Adding -avatar to the search string takes care of most of that.
Brian
--
Day 319 of the "no grouchy usenet posts" project
David Mitchell
> On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 17:07:14 +0000, James Nicoll wrote:
>
>> Specifically, the arcane art of using reflected or refracted
>> electromagnetic radiation as a means of detecting remote objects.
Oh yes, and Hubbard went (IIRC) 43 light years away to see how something
had happened on earth that long ago in _Battlefield Earth_.
I was only a sprog, but even I thought "That'd probably be a bit faint".
Dorothy J Heydt
David Mitchell <david.robo...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 03:32:21 -0600, David Mitchell wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 17:07:14 +0000, James Nicoll wrote:
>>
>>> Specifically, the arcane art of using reflected or refracted
>>> electromagnetic radiation as a means of detecting remote objects.
>
>Oh yes, and Hubbard went (IIRC) 43 light years away to see how something
>had happened on earth that long ago in _Battlefield Earth_.
Suuuuuuure he did.
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at hotmail dot com
Should you wish to email me, you'd better use the hotmail edress.
Kithrup is getting too damn much spam, even with the sysop's filters.
David Mitchell
> In article <MvKdnVwG2IADZ7bW...@brightview.co.uk>, David
> Mitchell <david.robo...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 03:32:21 -0600, David Mitchell wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 17:07:14 +0000, James Nicoll wrote:
>>>
>>>> Specifically, the arcane art of using reflected or refracted
>>>> electromagnetic radiation as a means of detecting remote objects.
>>
>>Oh yes, and Hubbard went (IIRC) 43 light years away to see how something
>>had happened on earth that long ago in _Battlefield Earth_.
>
> Suuuuuuure he did.
Perhaps I was unclear: Hubbards _protagonist_ went...
alie...@gmail.com
> n...@bid.nes <alien8...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >JimboCat <103134.3...@compuserve.com> wrote:
> >> Also, we must mention Niven's /Protector/, where the Brennan-monster
> >> creates a gravitational-lens telescope to search for incoming ramships.
>
> > I can't think of any story uses of wormholes as strictly remote-
> >viewing devices OTOMH, which is worrisome; it's terribly obvious.
>
> The rewritten version of Light of Other Days, by Clarke & Baxter.
Sure that's a rewrite? From the synopses I can find it sounds like a
completely different story with Bob Shaw's title.
Mark L. Fergerson
David DeLaney
It is. So maybe "rebranded" would have been a better word? I was thinking
along the lines of Against the Fall of Night/The City and the Stars, but yes,
it's more differenter than that. "Repackaged"?
alie...@gmail.com
> n...@bid.nes <alien8...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney) wrote:
> >> n...@bid.nes <alien8...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >JimboCat <103134.3...@compuserve.com> wrote:
> >> >> Also, we must mention Niven's /Protector/, where the Brennan-monster
> >> >> creates a gravitational-lens telescope to search for incoming ramships.
>
> >> > I can't think of any story uses of wormholes as strictly remote-
> >> >viewing devices OTOMH, which is worrisome; it's terribly obvious.
>
> >> The rewritten version of Light of Other Days, by Clarke & Baxter.
>
> > Sure that's a rewrite? From the synopses I can find it sounds like a
> >completely different story with Bob Shaw's title.
>
> It is. So maybe "rebranded" would have been a better word? I was thinking
> along the lines of Against the Fall of Night/The City and the Stars, but yes,
> it's more differenter than that. "Repackaged"?
Gah. Speaking of words Matt Groening annually advises us to stick a
fork in...
But yeah, there ought to be a term for that sort of thing that
doesn't smack so nastily of "plagiarism".
Mark L. Fergerson
David DeLaney
"Reimagined" is striking me as about right. ("reconceptified" can be judiciously
strangled, I think.)
Joseph Nebus
>nu...@bid.nes <alie...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney) wrote:
>>> n...@bid.nes <alien8...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >JimboCat <103134.3...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>>> >> Also, we must mention Niven's /Protector/, where the Brennan-monster
>>> >> creates a gravitational-lens telescope to search for incoming ramships.
>>>
>>> > I can't think of any story uses of wormholes as strictly remote-
>>> >viewing devices OTOMH, which is worrisome; it's terribly obvious.
>>>
>>> The rewritten version of Light of Other Days, by Clarke & Baxter.
>>
>> Sure that's a rewrite? From the synopses I can find it sounds like a
>>completely different story with Bob Shaw's title.
>It is. So maybe "rebranded" would have been a better word? I was thinking
>along the lines of Against the Fall of Night/The City and the Stars, but yes,
>it's more differenter than that. "Repackaged"?
'Bindered', considering the title _I, Robot_?
--
Joseph Nebus
------------------------------------------------------------------------------