Babylon V.
Bret D. Wortman: WordMan
> [stuff deleted]
> As far as the B5 pilot goes compared to The TNG and DS9 pilots, I much prefer
> B5. All of my friends here in Brighton have seen B5 and all agree than it
> pilot was better than the TNG and DS9 pilots. The acting does need working
> on, but the pilot didn't want to make us turn off in the first 10 minutes like
> Encounter At Farpoint or The Emissary did. B5 had atmosphere and passion,
> something which lacks in TNG most of the time.
>
> Having said that, I think B5 and Trek can co-exist and since B5 is going to
> become a series, I for one (and many of my Uk friends) am looking forward to
> it.
>
Sorry to pick on the last speaker, but.... ;-)
I'm getting a real kick out of hearing everyone talk about a B5 pilot.
As far as I know, there *is* no B5 pilot. What we all saw that night
was a two-hour MOW-ish one-shot presentation.
Do yourselves a favor and go back and watch "Blather at Farpoint". And
then compare. Setting what we've seen of B5 thus far against *current*
ST offerings is like expecting an infant to run like an adolescent.
Ain't gonna happen.
Someone earlier called B5 amateurish earlier in this stream.
Amateurish? Bleah. Get a day job, please. Or better idea: Write a
show yourself! Yeah, put your pencil where your mouth is and *do*
something better. And I wish you lots of luck. Really.
*If* the show goes into full production, we'll probably see a two-hour
pilot plus premiere episode. I'd imagine that with 90% of the
exposition done by now (and HEY! Any initial offering is 90%
exposition....) we'll be getting into meat real soon now.
Something *I* am still waiting for ST:*** to do....
WordMan
--
-------------------------+------------------------------------------------------
Bret D. Wortman | "Is this the value you humans call...friendship?"
wor...@centurylub.com | "Don't give me this Star Trek crap, it's too early
wor...@decus.org | in the morning." Dave Lister, to Kryten.
-------------------------+------------------------------------------------------
Darryl Burgdorf
Personally, I find it rather interesting that B5 supporters are talking so
much about how the pilot (or stand-alone movie, or whatever you want to call
it) *needed* all that exposition and backstory in order to explain things
in their "new" universe. The thing that impressed me most about B5 was how
utterly derivative it was. I'm not sure I saw an original idea in the whole
movie. (Not much original dialog, either. "Sooner or later, everyone comes
to ...." Sheesh. That line was much more effective 40 years ago in
"Casablanca.")
Sure, if it makes it in as a series, I'll watch a couple of episodes to see
if they can pull it out of the dump and make something worthwhile out of it.
I did the same for "Time Trax." But based on the first effort (and the
"years of work" that we've all heard went into it), I don't see B5 doing
any better than TT.
And as to it being "real" SF on TV, give me a break. B5 is no more "real"
SF than is "Star Trek," or "Highlander," or "Quantum Leap." In fact, I
don't think there's ever *been* a "real" SF series on TV. B5 is fantasy,
just like the rest of the lot. What is *isn't* so far is well-written and
well-acted fantasy.
Address all flames to:
<< Darryl C. Burgdorf: dburgdor @unmcvm.unmc.edu or @cwis.unomaha.edu >>
"I let my mind wander, and it never came back...."
Jackson, John A
>In article <1svq92...@ceres.kingston.ac.uk>, cs_...@ceres.kingston.ac.uk (QUANTUM PHYSICIST) writes:
>> [stuff deleted]
>> As far as the B5 pilot goes compared to The TNG and DS9 pilots, I much prefer
>> B5. All of my friends here in Brighton have seen B5 and all agree than it
>> pilot was better than the TNG and DS9 pilots. The acting does need working
>> on, but the pilot didn't want to make us turn off in the first 10 minutes like
>> Encounter At Farpoint or The Emissary did. B5 had atmosphere and passion,
>> something which lacks in TNG most of the time.
>>
>> Having said that, I think B5 and Trek can co-exist and since B5 is going to
>> become a series, I for one (and many of my Uk friends) am looking forward to
>> it.
>>
> I'm getting a real kick out of hearing everyone talk about a B5 pilot.
> As far as I know, there *is* no B5 pilot. What we all saw that night was
> a two-hour MOW-ish one-shot presentation.
Like you say yourself "As far as I know". Since you don't know, why
do you profess to know??
> Do yourselves a favor and go back and watch "Blather at Farpoint". And
> then compare. Setting what we've seen of B5 thus far against *current*
> ST offerings is like expecting an infant to run like an adolescent.
> Ain't gonna happen.
I understood, and even agree with, what QUANTUM PHYSICIST wrote. You,
however, don't make any sense. "Babylon 5", IMHO, was much better than
"Encounter at Farpoint" or "The Emissary". This is comparing the first
offerings of three different shows; sounds like apples to apples to apples
to me. Did I miss your point?
> Someone earlier called B5 amateurish earlier in this stream. Amateurish?
> Bleah. Get a day job, please. Or better idea: Write a show yourself!
> Yeah, put your pencil where your mouth is and *do* something better. And
> I wish you lots of luck. Really.
Amateurish? Yeah. Maybe you should get a night job. One doesn't
need to posess a pulitzer prize to critiqe literature (or in this case, a
script). If this were true, then few to no television shows would succeed
since very few people know how to write. The difference is, you expect the
people who claim that they can write to be *able* to write.
Actually, the show does have real potential. There are some "wet
behind the ear" spots in it, but that was probably because they were trying
to be different from Star Trek. If they continue the series, I hope that
they can pull it off. As much as I like Star Trek, I don't think the world
needs another Star Trek wannabe. It would be much better if they can
successfully find their own niche.
> *If* the show goes into full production, we'll probably see a two-hour
> pilot plus premiere episode. I'd imagine that with 90% of the exposition
> done by now (and HEY! Any initial offering is 90% exposition....) we'll
> be getting into meat real soon now.
> Something *I* am still waiting for ST:*** to do....
You must be looking in the wrong direction. Star Trek has some *very*
good writing, although it tends to be less a science fiction show and more
a drama, but hey, it works for me. I guess it depends on what you're
looking for.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
John A. Jackson
Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona
jjac...@envmsa.eas.asu.edu
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
noel ang
> Personally, I find it rather interesting that B5 supporters are talking so
> much about how the pilot (or stand-alone movie, or whatever you want to call
> it) *needed* all that exposition and backstory in order to explain things
> in their "new" universe. The thing that impressed me most about B5 was how
> utterly derivative it was.
Well, what else is new? We've had years of Star Trek, and no one's
complaining of how unoriginal the series and movies are. Does an SF show
have to be original to have merit?
> And as to it being "real" SF on TV, give me a break. B5 is no more "real"
> SF than is "Star Trek," or "Highlander," or "Quantum Leap." In fact, I
> don't think there's ever *been* a "real" SF series on TV. B5 is fantasy,
> just like the rest of the lot. What is *isn't* so far is well-written and
> well-acted fantasy.
What exactly is "real" SF, anyway? Hard Science Fiction? And how does SF
and Fantasy differ?
Frank Mayhar
>And as to it being "real" SF on TV, give me a break. B5 is no more "real"
>SF than is "Star Trek," or "Highlander," or "Quantum Leap." In fact, I
>don't think there's ever *been* a "real" SF series on TV. B5 is fantasy,
>just like the rest of the lot. What is *isn't* so far is well-written and
>well-acted fantasy.
OK, I'll bite. What do you define as "real" SF?
IMHO, B5 *appeared* to be as much "real" SF as anything I've ever seen on
film or video, with the possible exception of Kubrick's _2001_. So it's
a space opera; SF has a long tradition of space operas, and they can be
just as entertaining as any other kind of SF. I think they also may be
more suited to the medium; come to think of it, most SF movies could be
classed as space operas.
One thing B5 has is potential. And did I mention scope? Judging from
everything I've seen and heard (including seeing the two-hour "movie"),
it's going to be a classic space opera. I look forward to it; maybe it
will displace some of the abysmally-written crap that's passing itself
off as SF on TV these days. (I won't name names, but Gene Roddenberry
was involved. Of course, what could you expect from the person who gave
us "Genesis II?")
--
Frank Mayhar fma...@acsc.com
Advanced Computing Systems Company
3000 S. Robertson Blvd. Suite 400, LA, CA 90034 (310) 815-4858
Ron Jarrell
: I'm getting a real kick out of hearing everyone talk about a B5 pilot.
: was a two-hour MOW-ish one-shot presentation.
: *If* the show goes into full production, we'll probably see a two-hour
: pilot plus premiere episode. I'd imagine that with 90% of the
: exposition done by now (and HEY! Any initial offering is 90%
: exposition....) we'll be getting into meat real soon now.
What you saw was the pilot. It was also the first episode. When
written, Joe thought that the pilot would be followed the next week by
the first regular episode, and thus left all sorts of things dangling
that would be picked up the next week (like the skintab on the pressure
suit, the hole in sinclairs mind, etc..) He also threw in a lot of
exposition so that the background would be established for the next
episode.
Unfortunately, they were almost done filming before he discovered that
the pilot would be a stand along ep until they saw how it did.. If he
had known that BEFORE filming, it would have been severely rewritten to
be essentially self-contained, and not set up anthing that he couldn't
answer during the movie.
What you'll see is the pilot again, and then episodes that build on it,
although the first episode apparently is very different now that he has
this huge gap to deal with.
--
Ron Jarrell
Virginia Tech Computing Center
jar...@vtserf.cc.vt.edu
Bret D. Wortman: WordMan
>
> Personally, I find it rather interesting that B5 supporters are talking so
> much about how the pilot (or stand-alone movie, or whatever you want to call
> it) *needed* all that exposition and backstory in order to explain things
> in their "new" universe. The thing that impressed me most about B5 was how
> utterly derivative it was. I'm not sure I saw an original idea in the whole
> movie. (Not much original dialog, either. "Sooner or later, everyone comes
> to ...." Sheesh. That line was much more effective 40 years ago in
> "Casablanca.")
B5's pitchline was "Casablanca in Space". :-)
> And as to it being "real" SF on TV, give me a break. B5 is no more "real"
> SF than is "Star Trek," or "Highlander," or "Quantum Leap." In fact, I
> don't think there's ever *been* a "real" SF series on TV. B5 is fantasy,
> just like the rest of the lot. What is *isn't* so far is well-written and
> well-acted fantasy.
Methinks the closest we'll probably get is "Red Dwarf".
Bret D. Wortman: WordMan
> wor...@centurylub.com (Bret D. Wortman: WordMan) blathers his opinion:
>
>>In article <1svq92...@ceres.kingston.ac.uk>, cs_...@ceres.kingston.ac.uk (QUANTUM PHYSICIST) writes:
>>> [stuff deleted]
>> As far as I know, there *is* no B5 pilot. What we all saw that night was
>> a two-hour MOW-ish one-shot presentation.
>
> Like you say yourself "As far as I know". Since you don't know, why
> do you profess to know??
I don't. That's why I said "as far as I know". ;-) But after reading
some of Straczynski's posts in alt.tv.babylon-5, that was the
impression I got. Should've said that at the time.
>> Do yourselves a favor and go back and watch "Blather at Farpoint". And
>> then compare. Setting what we've seen of B5 thus far against *current*
>> ST offerings is like expecting an infant to run like an adolescent.
>> Ain't gonna happen.
>
> I understood, and even agree with, what QUANTUM PHYSICIST wrote. You,
> however, don't make any sense. "Babylon 5", IMHO, was much better than
> "Encounter at Farpoint" or "The Emissary". This is comparing the first
> offerings of three different shows; sounds like apples to apples to apples
> to me. Did I miss your point?
No, you didn't. I just excerpted the tail end of a conversation, and
obviously got the wrong part. Apologies. I agree with you totally
that the comparison between pilots is apt.
>> Someone earlier called B5 amateurish earlier in this stream. Amateurish?
>> Bleah. Get a day job, please. Or better idea: Write a show yourself!
>> Yeah, put your pencil where your mouth is and *do* something better. And
>> I wish you lots of luck. Really.
>
> Amateurish? Yeah. Maybe you should get a night job. One doesn't
> need to posess a pulitzer prize to critiqe literature (or in this case, a
> script). If this were true, then few to no television shows would succeed
> since very few people know how to write. The difference is, you expect the
> people who claim that they can write to be *able* to write.
Actually, I disagree with you here. We're not critiquing the script.
We're critiquing the show. The two are apples and oranges.
Read Harlan Ellison's essay "Somehow I Don't Think We're in Kansas,
Toto" for a shining example of just how different they can be. Look in
"Stalking the Nightmare", "Phoenix Without Ashes", or "The Essential
Ellison".
And remember also that B5 was intended to *sell* the series to the
public at large. It had to be big, splashy, flashy. They succeeded
there. If the public "buys in" and the series gets a green light (or
an "eep" or two), I believe that we'll see the kind of show that would
make *anyone* proud to say "yeah, I watch that. And I love it."
If not, *I'm* gonna be bitching louder than anyone, 'cause my hero's
the consultant for the show. (See reference two paragraphs above) :-)
> Actually, the show does have real potential. There are some "wet
> behind the ear" spots in it, but that was probably because they were trying
> to be different from Star Trek. If they continue the series, I hope that
> they can pull it off. As much as I like Star Trek, I don't think the world
> needs another Star Trek wannabe. It would be much better if they can
> successfully find their own niche.
I'd be interested to know what you found to be derivative. Conversely,
what about ST was unique -- what did they do first?
>> *If* the show goes into full production, we'll probably see a two-hour
>> pilot plus premiere episode. I'd imagine that with 90% of the exposition
>> done by now (and HEY! Any initial offering is 90% exposition....) we'll
>> be getting into meat real soon now.
>
>> Something *I* am still waiting for ST:*** to do....
>
> You must be looking in the wrong direction. Star Trek has some *very*
> good writing, although it tends to be less a science fiction show and more
> a drama, but hey, it works for me. I guess it depends on what you're
> looking for.
True, and I really do enjoy TNG. DS9's premiere bored me silly -- felt
like ST:TMP on the little screen -- but it's getting better. But that
doesn't change the fact that it really doesn't qualify as SF for me.
The original had substance (City on the Edge of Forever). It also had
some really simpy moments (Spock's Brain). But it seemed to have more
of the former and less of the latter.
Looking back over the years of TNG, I personally feel that its scales
have tipped the other way.
I know this isn't something I'm supposed to do, but darn it, I
apologize for the tone of that post. Must've been the fact that I
haven't had a cigarette in a week and a half (and still counting....)
:-)
David Griffiths
> You must be looking in the wrong direction. Star Trek has some *very*
>good writing, although it tends to be less a science fiction show and more
>a drama, but hey, it works for me. I guess it depends on what you're
>looking for.
If you really want a nasty turn, have a look at the end of one of the
scene in "Young and Restless" (gawd I hate that show, had to run it
for 3 months!!), then watch the end of a scene in STTNG.
Notice any similarities? Tight shots of actors' faces? Dramatic
Music? Perhaps STTNG is no more than a techno-soap opera?
--
David Griffiths // Internet: dgr...@unixg.ubc.ca
____________ _ // Fidonet: David Griffiths @ 1:153/765.0 or 1:153/910.0
DLG "Pro" | \\/ Broadcast TV @ British Columbia Institute of Technology
Jonathan Roy
>
> *If* the show goes into full production, we'll probably see a two-hour
> pilot plus premiere episode. I'd imagine that with 90% of the
> exposition done by now (and HEY! Any initial offering is 90%
> exposition....) we'll be getting into meat real soon now.
The show IS in production now. ;) Filming begins in June, with
eps airing around September sometime. B5: The Gathering _WAS_ the pilot,
2-hour episode. JMS wasn't told it was going to stand alone until it was
completed. As such, the first episode you'll see in the full season
will be what you should have seen one week after watching the pilot.
He's said many times that he would have written it much differently
if he intended it to stand alone. (Less information, less threads for
the series, more active/plot, and so forth...)
Anyways, I'm looking forward to it, and everyone has the option
to (not) watch. :) I expect that _I_ will enjoy it far more than DSN. As
far as comparing it to ST:TNG, I'll have to wait and see. ST:TNG has
an occasional good episode, a bunch of average ones, and an occasional
horrible episode. There are only a few eps of ST that stand out in my
mind as 'great'. I'll have to see how the weekly quality turns out in
B5... :) (Of course, it's a different format altogether, with a story arc,
but that is another can of worms...)
--
F F Jonathan Roy, of the Free Access Foundation Email: ni...@faf.org
A Mail f...@halcyon.com for information, or FTP to halcyon.com: /pub/faf/
F F Vorlons, of the Galactic Bloodshed Development Team GEnie: J.ROY18
"Everything that has transpired has done so according to my design." - _RotJ_
Roger Tang
>One thing B5 has is potential. And did I mention scope? Judging from
>everything I've seen and heard (including seeing the two-hour "movie"),
>it's going to be a classic space opera.
I hope it realizes its potential. I'd like to see a good
space opera.
I look forward to it; maybe it
>will displace some of the abysmally-written crap that's passing itself
>off as SF on TV these days.
But I hope it improves its execution. Otherwise, it'll just
be abysmally written.
Roger Tang
> The show IS in production now. ;) Filming begins in June, with
>eps airing around September sometime. B5: The Gathering _WAS_ the pilot,
>2-hour episode. JMS wasn't told it was going to stand alone until it was
>completed. As such, the first episode you'll see in the full season
>will be what you should have seen one week after watching the pilot.
> He's said many times that he would have written it much differently
>if he intended it to stand alone. (Less information, less threads for
>the series, more active/plot, and so forth...)
Then I think he should have written it that way. Even as the first
episode for an ongoing series, the 2-hour movie had some real problems
in the writing, which is why it was so disappointing.
Let's hope they streamline the scripts ALOT.
Roger Tang
> Amateurish? Bleah. Get a day job, please. Or better idea: Write a
> show yourself! Yeah, put your pencil where your mouth is and *do*
> something better. And I wish you lots of luck. Really.
Been there. Done that.
Not very easy, but it's doable.
David Thiel
>From: gwan...@u.washington.edu (Roger Tang)
>Subject: Re: Babylon V.
>Date: 19 May 1993 17:21:06 GMT
Been *where?* Done *what?* If you want to use your personal writing
experience to add credibility to your arguments, please be more specific.
Anything we might've seen?
David Thiel / Traffic Manager Phone: (217) 333-1070
WILL-TV / University of Illinois / Urbana Internet: d-t...@uiuc.edu
"I've done all my grievin' and heavin', and now I'm leavin'."
--Opal, ALL MY CHILDREN
Jonathan Roy
>
>What exactly is "real" SF, anyway? Hard Science Fiction? And how does SF
>and Fantasy differ?
>
Hmm... This is a hard one, since it depends on one's opinion. At least
for me, I consider "hard" or "read" SF to be fiction set in the future,
or with new technology, but completely based on Science as it's known today.
The SF I read usually deals with how the new technology impacts society
or individual people... It's usually the science fantasy type stuff
that is more caught up in the technology itself.
What I expect from B5 is something pretty close to 'hard' SF. Granted,
there have non purely-science based things... Like the telepathic ability.
But it'll be handled in a reasonable way... How the abilties effect society,
how the telepaths are different from others in various ways, etc. What
I hope to never see on B5 is things like the crew being turned into
children, many all-powerful creatures roaming about, and so forth...
ST:TNG has alot of weaknesses, but it also has alot of strengths... A few
of the episodes have been terrific, a few have been utterly horrible.
If B5 were consistantly good, I'd really enjoy it more, than the swinging
motion of ST between great and horrible.
Anyways, there's my two cents. Now that we have posting access here,
I'm probably getting carried away. :)
(As an example, I consider "The Worlock in Spite of Himself" to be
science fantasy, and "Rama" to be science fiction.)
Laura F. Jenkins
>Unfortunately, they were almost done filming before he discovered that
>the pilot would be a stand along ep until they saw how it did.. If he
>had known that BEFORE filming, it would have been severely rewritten to
>be essentially self-contained, and not set up anthing that he couldn't
>answer during the movie.
>
order without a finished pilot or presentation for the network executives
to take a look at so they know what they're buying.
>--
>Ron Jarrell
>Virginia Tech Computing Center
>jar...@vtserf.cc.vt.edu
--
*************************************************************************
Aliskye MacKyven Raizel "Timing Is Everything"
ali...@netcom.comm
Marc Wiz
Stuff deleted ...
>
> What I expect from B5 is something pretty close to 'hard' SF. Granted,
>there have non purely-science based things... Like the telepathic ability.
>But it'll be handled in a reasonable way... How the abilties effect society,
>how the telepaths are different from others in various ways, etc. What
>I hope to never see on B5 is things like the crew being turned into
>children, many all-powerful creatures roaming about, and so forth...
>ST:TNG has alot of weaknesses, but it also has alot of strengths... A few
>of the episodes have been terrific, a few have been utterly horrible.
>If B5 were consistantly good, I'd really enjoy it more, than the swinging
>motion of ST between great and horrible.
Oh well into the abyss :-)
My wife and I are fans of ST:TNG as well as of ST:TOS and Babylon 5.
We eagerly awaited Babylon 5. It has a wonderful premise and shows
great promise.
We watched the two hour pilot and liked it. It wasn't bad but then we
weren't awed but we did "walk away" definitely wanting to see more of
the B5 universe.
IMHO TNG seems to have had the same distribution of stories that TOS
had. Some were outstanding. Some were ok and some were horrible.
I believe that David Gerrold in "The World of Star Trek" pretty much
said the same thing. That ST had a few great episodes, etc. But it
hasn't lived up to it's potential.
I don't think ST fans should be afraid of B5. We all should welcome B5
as a chance for some variety. I wish JMS and the entire cast and crew
of B5 nothing but good luck in their endeavors.
Marc
mw...@austin.ibm.com
(512)823-9330
Yes, that really is my last name.
I type only for myself.
Val Kartchner
: In article <noirC79...@netcom.com> no...@netcom.com (noel ang) writes:
: >What exactly is "real" SF, anyway? Hard Science Fiction? And how does SF
: >and Fantasy differ?
: Hmm... This is a hard one, since it depends on one's opinion. At least
: for me, I consider "hard" or "read" SF to be fiction set in the future,
: or with new technology, but completely based on Science as it's known today.
: The SF I read usually deals with how the new technology impacts society
: or individual people... It's usually the science fantasy type stuff
: that is more caught up in the technology itself.
So, by your definition 'hard' SF can't have FTL travel/communication.
There is alot about the physical universe that we don't know. This
isn't a flame, but I would very much like for this group to discuss
what is meant by 'hard SF'.
Let me give a first approximation to a definition* of what I consider to
be 'hard SF':
'hard SF': n., Fiction based on extrapolations of current scientific
theories and hypothesis about what is and/or may be possible.
Or to put it another way:
Fiction: What might have been.
Science Fiction: What may be.
Fantasy: What is conceivable.
Whether these descriptions are inclusive or exclusive (Is fiction a subset
of science fiction which is a subset of fantasy, or not?) is up for
discussion. Precisely where the lines are drawn is the problem.
: What I expect from B5 is something pretty close to 'hard' SF. Granted,
: there have non purely-science based things... Like the telepathic ability.
What makes you think that telepathic abilities are science fiction?
No, don't answer that; I know what you're thinking. ;-)
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistiguishable from magic."
-- Arthur C. Clark.
: I hope to never see on B5 is things like the crew being turned into
: children, many all-powerful creatures roaming about, and so forth...
: ST:TNG has alot of weaknesses, but it also has alot of strengths...
I agree. I like ST too, but I don't like them blatently ignoring previously
established limits to their technology. It has always been their official
policy (as established in the may-be-fake "Writers' Guides") that the story
is always more important than getting the technology right. If it weren't
necessary to get the technology right enough, then you'd hear the same
complaints from the fans of Angela Lansbery, Perry Mason, and Columbo.
Comments?
-=:[ VAL ]:=-
--------
* - Should definitions (dictionary or otherwise) prescribe proper usage
of words, or should they attempt to distill the actual usage of words?
Think about this question; it's not as easy as you may think.
--
|================= #include <stddisclaimer.h> ================///=============|
| "AMIGA: The computer for the creative mind" (tm) Commodore /// Weber State |
| "Macintosh: The computer for the rest of us"(tm) Apple \\\/// University |
|== "I think, therefore I AMiga" -- v...@csulx.weber.edu ==\///= Ogden UT USA =|
Roger Tang
>Jonathan Roy (r...@eckerd.edu) wrote:
>: I hope to never see on B5 is things like the crew being turned into
>: children, many all-powerful creatures roaming about, and so forth...
If that happens, I'd say that would be a sign of creative bankruptcy,
since there is more than enough drama inherent in the premise.
>I agree. I like ST too, but I don't like them blatently ignoring previously
>established limits to their technology.
> It has always been their official
>policy (as established in the may-be-fake "Writers' Guides") that the story
>is always more important than getting the technology right.
Huh. I wish they'd follow their own words. Most of the problem
with Trek is that they DON'T get the story right.
ggreg
futurisitic soap opera/drama. it is not SF. why else would it be doing
so good in the ratings? do you think a serious, hard SF show would make
it in america? no way....
ggreg
In article <dgriff.7...@unixg.ubc.ca>
Jonathan Roy
>There is alot about the physical universe that we don't know. This
>isn't a flame, but I would very much like for this group to discuss
>what is meant by 'hard SF'.
>
That's not really true... There are some theories dealing
with partical spin, and whatnot, that may allow for instant
communication accross any distance. I don't know much
about itmyself, I'm only in Physics I, not Quantum II. ;)
>Let me give a first approximation to a definition* of what I consider to
>be 'hard SF':
>
> 'hard SF': n., Fiction based on extrapolations of current scientific
> theories and hypothesis about what is and/or may be possible.
>
>Or to put it another way:
>
> Fiction: What might have been.
> Science Fiction: What may be.
> Fantasy: What is conceivable.
>
>What makes you think that telepathic abilities are science fiction?
>
I don't think they are... I think they are science fantasy. :)
>Comments?
>
> -=:[ VAL ]:=-
Just one more.. :) Somethingto keep in mind is that the jump
gates, and whatnot, were discovered via the alien races
we found, that already had that technology... Hard SF, in my
mind, doesn't need to be totally grounded in what humans will
discover in the future, but I don't think 'science' that totally
disobeys all we've learned of physics at thsi point is hard SF. :)
ie: I can accept FTL travel, by way of a worm hole, cosmic string
theory, or some sort of 4D hyperspace. I can't belive reading
a person into a computer, then recreating them someplace else. :)
ST's solution to the Hiesenburg Uncertainty Principle is
"Hiesenburg Compensators'. :) If you can compenstate for it,
then the Principle is false!
That's the type of stuff I have pet peeves with. Joe plans to hire
on a real science sort of guy to make sure everything is reasonable.
(Like Gentry Lee w/ Clarke, etc.)
Eneouch aimless babble for me. :)
Robert I. Eachus
> ST's solution to the Hiesenburg Uncertainty Principle is
> "Hiesenburg Compensators'. :) If you can compenstate for it,
> then the Principle is false!
Sorry, Jonathan, you just have to keep up with modern physics.
There have been some recent discussions of the fact that, although the
Uncertainty Principle is true in general, with "squeezed states," you
can put all of the uncertainty in a single aspect of the state vector,
then clone (duplicate) that particular quantum aspect. The most
interesting part of this is that the quantum duplication takes place
at a distance and instantaneously! (This is old knowledge. Read
about the EPR paradox before flaming.) However, it is not clear
whether a "classical" information channel is also necessary...
--
Robert I. Eachus
with Standard_Disclaimer;
use Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...
Brad Barton
>to ...." Sheesh. That line was much more effective 40 years ago in
>"Casablanca.")
There are no new ideas anymore... even Shakespeare borrowed heavily from
existing stories..
>And as to it being "real" SF on TV, give me a break. B5 is no more "real"
>SF than is "Star Trek," or "Highlander," or "Quantum Leap." In fact, I
>don't think there's ever *been* a "real" SF series on TV. B5 is fantasy,
>just like the rest of the lot. What is *isn't* so far is well-written and
>well-acted fantasy.
I would think the adapation of The Martian Chronicles (although it wasn't
complete enough and was only a mini-series) would qualify as "real" sf on
tv.
--
My Address is changing! Please use br...@scilab.lonestar.org to send mail!
George Fergus
> ST's solution to the Hiesenburg Uncertainty Principle is
> "Hiesenburg Compensators'. :) If you can compenstate for it,
> then the Principle is false!
>
> That's the type of stuff I have pet peeves with. Joe plans to hire
> on a real science sort of guy to make sure everything is reasonable.
One does not have to go that far to find physics bloopers in Star Trek.
In one episode of ST:TNG ("The Royale", I think) one of the crew gives
the outside temperature as -291 degrees Celsius. ANY science adviser
would have told them that 18 degrees below absolute zero is a no-no.
-George
Jeff Vavasour
>(Jonathan Roy) writes:
I think TNG *has* science advisors, so hiring one doesn't guarantee
accuracy. (Wasn't there a post on r.a.s.i where their advisor was quoted
saying that they were willing to break a law of physics for dramatic
effect?) In any case, I'd just like to see a science fiction program that
stuck to known physics, period. That would be fun.
Truth is stranger than fiction. Why have these damned warp drives and jump
gates? Relativity could make for some very unique effects, and I'm
not talking about wormholes. A continuing scifi that talked about time
dilation effects instead of FTL travel would thrill me to no end. The sad
part is that a general viewing audience would probably dismiss it as being
unrealistic nonsense.
(Best I can tell, jump gates imply wormholes. Wormholes automatically
imply time travel through GR.)
I mean, travelling to star systems thousands of lightyears away in subjective
days *is* possible. It's just getting back in time for supper that isn't.
- Jeff
p.s. w.r.t. Star Trek's Royale blooper: negative absolute temperatures *are*
possible in highly contrived cases. Though I doubt very much if the
planet was an isolated quantum spin system in a magnetic field.
John Switzer Frame 3.0
>One does not have to go that far to find physics bloopers in Star Trek.
>In one episode of ST:TNG ("The Royale", I think) one of the crew gives
>the outside temperature as -291 degrees Celsius. ANY science adviser
>would have told them that 18 degrees below absolute zero is a no-no.
Why do people assume that everything we know now is absolutely right?
Heat is basically motion, with absolute zero at the point of no molecular
motion. So why couldn't it be possible that a construct or device could
go beyond that point in some way? Perhaps there is motion beyond that which
we can currently perceive, in subspace or whatever. Perhaps the device could
reduce or eliminate motion in objects contained within its field of operation
(not heat transfer, but some other mechanism).
The point is that there are dozens of ways this could be possible, so instead
of thinking your high school science is the end-all and be-all, how about
applying yourself and thinking about ways it *could* be possible. That's
how discoveries are made.
Joseph L. Lockett
the same episode talks numerous times about the nasty swirling methane storms
in the atmosphere -- hmmmm... that sounds like motion to me. And they teach
about absolute zero in college too, by the way. Or is the hotel artifact
deliberately maintaining gaseous methane, too, to draw attention to itself?
You're dancing around the point -- I, for one, am more than willing to
accept a violation of the current laws of physics, so long as it's done
FOR THE SAKE OF THE STORY. So warp drive is okay, since without FTL
your options are much more limited (though Star Cops did just fine....).
I can even accept telepathy, so long as it sets its limits and obeys
them (viva Lyta Alexander, rather than the Gypsy from Space who reads
minds through view-screens...). But when you don't set it up as an
integral, necessary part of the plot or background, when it's just
thrown in off the cuff but is completely stupid and without explanation,
that's laziness on the part of the writers, and an insult to me as a
viewer. Might even be detrimental to science education....
Pardon the rant. I, for one, look forward to Babylon 5, if it fulfills
its original promise. So far, it's been clever and fairly "realistic"
(or is that just versimilitudinous?).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph "Chepe" Lockett / jlo...@ricevm1.rice.edu › Hail HEGGA!
Hamman Hall Auditorium Administrator ›/ Nullum magnum ingenium sine
Rice University, Houston, Texas, USA /› mixtura dementiae fuit.-Seneca
Rice doesn't speak for me, nor I for Rice. At least, not here....
Michael Burstein
>
>(Best I can tell, jump gates imply wormholes. Wormholes automatically
>imply time travel through GR.)
Are you sure about that? I just took a course in GR, and while wormholes
could imply time travel, it didn't mean that they required time travel.
--
Michael A. Burstein
Physics Department, Boston University m...@buphy.bu.edu
590 Commonwealth Ave. (617) 353-9437 (o)
Boston, MA 02215 (617) 735-9433 (h)
Bret D. Wortman: WordMan
>
> Truth is stranger than fiction. Why have these damned warp drives and jump
> gates? Relativity could make for some very unique effects, and I'm
> not talking about wormholes. A continuing scifi that talked about time
> dilation effects instead of FTL travel would thrill me to no end. The sad
> part is that a general viewing audience would probably dismiss it as being
> unrealistic nonsense.
>
> (Best I can tell, jump gates imply wormholes. Wormholes automatically
> imply time travel through GR.)
>
> I mean, travelling to star systems thousands of lightyears away in subjective
> days *is* possible. It's just getting back in time for supper that isn't.
>
Hmmmm. Instead of FTL, use relativistic. You mean have a ship that
travels around, fairly static crew, no (or very few) visits from people
from *off* the ship that repeat....
Sounds to me like ST:*** could've done it, had they wanted to, except
that Lwaxana wouldn't have gotten her repeat performance so easily....
Family ties gone, rapid secondary cast changeovers, no ability to reuse
a bit part that got successful.... The universe changing right under
your main characters' feet every time they turned around, entire wars
being fought in eyeblinks.... And all these other ships dashing
around, existing in their own little relative times, watching things go
by faster or slower depending on their speeds WRT everything else,
including the *other* relativistic ships.... People in "realtime"
making massive discoveries.... Every starship that arrives somewhere
finds its equipment and its crew obsolete and out of date, the sheer
*volume* of changes being made rendering "catching up" impossible, so
one cruise and a crew has to retire -- their skills of no use any more.
Naaaaaah. The possibility of screwing up a time-stream somewhere and
getting flamed by viewers just makes my head thud.
WordMan
--
------------------------+-------------------------------------------------------
Bret D. Wortman |Lister: Love is what separates us from the animals
wor...@centurylub.com |Rimmer: No, Lister -- what separates us from animals
wor...@decus.org |is that we don't use our tongues to clean our genitals.
------------------------+-------------------------------------------------------
Mike Van Pelt
Re: interstellar travel in the real world, no FTL
> Family ties gone, rapid secondary cast changeovers, no ability to reuse
> finds its equipment and its crew obsolete and out of date, the sheer
> *volume* of changes being made rendering "catching up" impossible, so
> one cruise and a crew has to retire -- their skills of no use any more.
Well, it depends on your premises. Once everything really is discovered,
then technology might not change much.
As for the ships... For the non-planetbound, your ship is your
homeworld. Each ship would be a world/nation/ethnic group to itself.
--
Mike Van Pelt "When Clinton said he was going to create 8 million
m...@netcom.com new jobs, I didn't think they were all going to be
tax collectors." -- Jay Leno
Ron Jarrell
: (Best I can tell, jump gates imply wormholes. Wormholes automatically
In this case, jump gates involve hyperspace. The jump gates provide the
power required to punch a hole into hyperspace (actually, "jumpspace" I
believe is the term he's using) to either get a ship INTO, or OUT OF
jumpspace. Thus, even a dinky little "workpod" type ship can do
interstellar travel. So long as they know where they're going, because
there might not be any station or planet anywhere near a gate at the
other end to provide refueling. Ships do spend time in jumpspace, and a
local owner, assuming they want to take the political risk, can refuse
to allow a ship to exit using his/her gate. They have traffic control
needs if a bunch of ships arrives.
Normal ships can't do jumps into hyperspace on their own; the power and
equipment requirements are enormous. (Those gates aren't that big just
because they need maneuvering room.)
There are ships that *can* however; long range explorers, and military
carriers. They'll devote the space required to a jump drive. The
military because they can then come out where and when they want, and
either take control of the enemy gate, or build their own, and the
explorers because by definition they're going places where there aren't
gates. Explorer ships are HUGE, because they not only have their own
jump drive, but the parts and materials storage to BUILD one or more
gates when they find something interesting.
Greg Larson
>In article <1993May22....@centurylub.com> wor...@centurylub.com (Bret D. Wortman: WordMan) writes:
>Re: interstellar travel in the real world, no FTL
>> Family ties gone, rapid secondary cast changeovers, no ability to reuse
>> a bit part that got successful.... Every starship that arrives somewhere
>> finds its equipment and its crew obsolete and out of date, the sheer
>> *volume* of changes being made rendering "catching up" impossible, so
>> one cruise and a crew has to retire -- their skills of no use any more.
>
>Well, it depends on your premises. Once everything really is discovered,
>then technology might not change much.
Yes, also by traveling very close to light speed and/or by using some
kind of suspended animation, ageing should be sufficiently slow that
new skill can be obtained (what do you (Bret) think -- all of us guys
over 30 can't learn new skills? ;). Also, I envision a planned
expansion (there will always be those who have to expand) in which
little or no direct interaction between crews occurs -- when something
new is discovered, it is immediately broadcast to the whole galaxy.
Also, "crews" will not be there so much to perform some noble function
for a "home world" as they will be doing it for their own
self-interest, and because travel between the stars would beis the
normal way of life (for these expansionists). If they find some place
interesting, those interested could very well live out the rest of
their lives there, with robots doing all the necessary life-supporting
work. With such a planned expansion, there is no reason why a single
species could not populate the entire galaxy in about 100,000 years.
Since we are relative late-comers, we will find evidence of other
travelers in just about every single place explored. Hopefully, a
code of ethics that includes the avoidance of unnecessary destruction
of living environments is a somewhat universal trait.
>As for the ships... For the non-planetbound, your ship is your
>homeworld. Each ship would be a world/nation/ethnic group to itself.
Exactly. I am convinced of this, and that even planetbound ships can
be made to serve as a comfortable homeworld, such that most persons
who grow up aboard such ships will regard them very favorably and not
see much reason to settle down on a planet somewhere. In my scenario
for planned expansion, each of the traveling ships would be capable of
self-duplication, given the right raw materials. All of the work will
be accomplished by robots, perhaps even while traveling to the next
destination. Perhaps the only raw material needed by an advanced race
would be hydrogen, in which case such an expansion would be a simple
task indeed (Carl Sagan not-withstanding).
Greg
Val Kartchner
: fer...@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (George Fergus) writes:
: >One does not have to go that far to find physics bloopers in Star Trek.
:
: I think TNG *has* science advisors, so hiring one doesn't guarantee
: accuracy. [....]
As a trekkie, I can tell you that even fans don't like it when they violate
the currently known laws of physics without an explanation. But what's
even more frustrating (to me at least) is when they blatantly violate the
"Laws of Physics" that they have established for themselves. Misuse and
non-use of available technology are also obvious. (The transporter and
the holodeck are prime examples.) The best way to say it is that there is
a general lack of quality control (in consistency) evident in ST:TNG. I
have noticed that since the airing of B5, alien makeup on ST:TNG has become
better.
DS9 is an obvious (to us) attempt by Paramount to clone B5. It's generally
considered not as good as TNG. I consider it sufficiently different from
TNG (and even B5) to give it a chance; it is much better than the average
primetime fare. However, so far, DS9 has created less self contradictions.
"Time Trax", while still being better than the average primetime fare, has
even more holes. (Gee, I don't think much of primetime television, do I?)
I'll even go out on a limb and say that I liked "Space Rangers". Yes, it
was campy. (I can't find a concise definition of 'campy'.) No, it wasn't
ST:TNG, DS9, nor B5. But it had endering qualities of it's own. Except
for the FTL travel and communications, I consider it 'hard' SF. (They
even used projectile weapons with laser sights.)
: Truth is stranger than fiction. Why have these damned warp drives and jump
: gates? Relativity could make for some very unique effects, and I'm
: not talking about wormholes. A continuing scifi that talked about time
: dilation effects instead of FTL travel would thrill me to no end. The sad
: part is that a general viewing audience would probably dismiss it as being
: unrealistic nonsense.
Unfortunately, for our country's (USA) well-being in the technological world,
science education is severely lacking. What the average person perceives
as realistic for physics is an extension of what said person experiences in
the 'real' world. This means that people use Newtonian Physics as their
basis in physics. Relativistic time dialations are present at any speed,
but they (supposedly) are only directly perceivable (to humans) at speeds
above one tenth 'c' (the speed of light in a vacuum).
It is possible to do interesting stories without FTL travel. "Ender's War"
("Ender's Game" and "Speaker For The Dead") by Orson Scott Card dealt with
relativity. The drives on the ship were capable of zero to 99.9% of 'c'
in a very short time. Travel to a star 22 ly distant took one week of
subjective time, but about 22 years in 'real' time. It made for interesting
situations in war and politics. But "Ender's Game" had FTL communication
(the ansibel (sp?)).
It is almost a necessity for a continuing series involving interstellar
travel to have FTL travel and communication. Most people would not
understand why there is the light barrier (like the 'sound barrier' which
*has* been broken) and how that affects interstellar travel. (See above
paragraphs.) However, it may be possible to do something like A. E.
VanVoigt's "Voyage of the Space Beagle".
-=:[ VAL ]:=-
P.S.: Does anyone know of any stories involving regular interstellar
travel which don't do FTL travel nor FTL communication? I would
(and others may) be interested in reading such stories.
Udo K Schuermann
>P.S.: Does anyone know of any stories involving regular interstellar
> travel which don't do FTL travel nor FTL communication? I would
> (and others may) be interested in reading such stories.
Yes, "The Forever War" by Joe Haldeman comes to mind, and there are
probably others.
A Adams
>> P.S.: Does anyone know of any stories involving regular interstellar
>> travel which don't do FTL travel nor FTL communication? I would
>> (and others may) be interested in reading such stories.
Ursula LeGuin makes use of relativistic effects of space travel in her
books concerning and interstellar empire. The only title I can think of
is The Left Hand of Darkness, but there are others in the same universe
available.
--
TTFN, Zaphod (Two Heads, No Brain)*E-mail*csc...@gps.leeds.ac.uk****
************************************snail*Flat 18,26 Brudenell Road**
**Happiness is a cigar ...*********mail*Leeds,LS6 1BD,UK***********
**shoved up a smoker's arse!**********Tel*UK-0532 789237*************
BRETT
There comes a point where ratioizing mistakes in SF becomes silly.
Face it, they goofed.
David Bofinger
> What the average person perceives as realistic for physics is an
> extension of what said person experiences in the 'real' world. This
> means that people use Newtonian Physics as their basis in physics.
Actually they use Aristotlean physics. That's why when the shuttle
loses power it slows down and stops.
> But "Ender's Game" had FTL communication (the ansibel (sp?)).
Ansible, I believe, I think le Guin coined the term.
> It is almost a necessity for a continuing series involving
> interstellar travel to have FTL travel and communication. Most people
> would not understand why there is the light barrier (like the 'sound
> barrier' which *has* been broken) and how that affects interstellar
> travel.
I think realistic space travel would be a lot of hassle to explain in
a one-off, but in a continuing series is the one place you might get
away with it.
> P.S.: Does anyone know of any stories involving regular interstellar
> travel which don't do FTL travel nor FTL communication? I would
> (and others may) be interested in reading such stories.
Joe Haldeman's "Forever War", of course. Larry Niven's "Protector" and
"State" series ("The Integral Trees" and "The Smoke Ring" both have
references, the short story that got novelised about the corpsicle
ramship pilot has a plot about it). Poul Anderson's "Tau Zero".
Greg Larson writes:
>In article <1993May22....@centurylub.com> wor...@centurylub.com
(Bret D. Wortman: WordMan) writes:
>> Family ties gone, rapid secondary cast changeovers, no ability to reuse
>> a bit part that got successful.... Every starship that arrives somewhere
>> finds its equipment and its crew obsolete and out of date, the sheer
>> *volume* of changes being made rendering "catching up" impossible, so
>> one cruise and a crew has to retire -- their skills of no use any more.
> [...] by traveling very close to light speed and/or by using some
> kind of suspended animation, ageing should be sufficiently slow that
> new skill can be obtained
Travelling close to the speed of light isn't the solution, it's what
makes it a problem. You live your life (including ageing, but also
learning skills, etc.) very slowly compared with the scientists back
home, who research, improve on what you have laboriously learnt, teach
other scientists, die, then other scientists make more advances, make
obsolete what you know, die, etc.. All this happens while you are
eating breakfast. So whenever you come back from a mission you find
your ship is obsolete, you have no useful skills, you don't speak the
language and the human race has evolved into something with five
brains and is no longer interested in star travel.
As for suspended animation, if you can learn very quickly while in
hibernation you might as well say that you learn instantly by RNA
injections.
> Also, "crews" will not be there so much to perform some noble
> function for a "home world" as they will be doing it for their own
> self-interest
Unless they were scheduled to be executed before they left it's hard
to see what that self-interest will be.
> and because travel between the stars would be the normal way of life
> (for these expansionists).
And the planet-bound cultures operate space colonies in orbit whose
purpose is to produce interstellar crewpeople.
> With such a planned expansion, there is no reason why a single
> species could not populate the entire galaxy in about 100,000 years.
Agreed.
> Since we are relative late-comers,
Evidence? Relative to whom?
> Hopefully, a code of ethics that includes the avoidance of unnecessary
> destruction of living environments is a somewhat universal trait.
The implausibility of this hope (surely there are some self-centred
bastards like us out there?), combined with our existence, is for me
the strongest evidence that humanity is the only technological species
in the region.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Bofinger AARNet: dxb...@phys.anu.edu.au
Snail: Dept. of Theoretical Physics, RSPhysSE, ANU, ACT, 2601
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Glen Anthony Graham
>even more holes. (Gee, I don't think much of primetime television, do I?)
Too many. Ugh, I may stop watching it soon. Why doesn't just 'shoot first',
rather than waiting for someone to steal his PPT and shoot him with it. *sigh*
>It is possible to do interesting stories without FTL travel. "Ender's War"
>("Ender's Game" and "Speaker For The Dead") by Orson Scott Card dealt with
>relativity. The drives on the ship were capable of zero to 99.9% of 'c'
>in a very short time. Travel to a star 22 ly distant took one week of
>subjective time, but about 22 years in 'real' time. It made for interesting
>situations in war and politics. But "Ender's Game" had FTL communication
>(the ansibel (sp?)).
First, Orson Scott Card did ignore one 'problem' about relativistic velocities.
As velocity approaches the speed of light, mass increases to infinity. So,
theoretically, a ship travelling at high relativistic speeds would have a
mass so large that it could not accelerate or decelerate because they would
not be able to cart that much fuel around with them.
Also, in the third "Ender" book, "Xenocide", Orson Scott Card introduced
instantaneous "transmission" of people/vessels by using Jane and another
dimension. So, even he had to leap beyond the light barrier.
>It is almost a necessity for a continuing series involving interstellar
>travel to have FTL travel and communication. Most people would not
The human race's scientific (ie quantum physics, etc) knowledge is so
amazingly young and infantile that if we contuinue to discover things
at the same rate as we have in the last 90 years (many of which were formerly
considered 'impossible'), then something may well come along. Perhaps there
is yet another dimension out there, or the ability to manipulate time, or
whatever. We probably will not know, but perhaps in a couple of hundred
years, which is when these SF series are supposed to take place...
>P.S.: Does anyone know of any stories involving regular interstellar
> travel which don't do FTL travel nor FTL communication? I would
> (and others may) be interested in reading such stories.
Sure. One of Isaac Asimov's last books, 'Nemesis' (1989) was a stand-alone
book that used 'Today's technology'. A real good book.
Allen Steele's Trilogy, "Orbital Decay", "Clarke County, Space", and "Lunar
Descent" (1989, 1990, and 1991)
Larry Niven, Jerry Pournelle, and Michael Flynn's "Fallen Angel" (1991)
Dean Ing's "The Big Lifters" (today's cutting edge technology) (1988)
Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle's "Lucifer's Hammer" and "Footfall"
Larry Niven and Steven Barnes' "The Descent of Anansi" (1982)
Arthur C. Clarke, "The Fountains of Paradise" (almost possible) (1978)
John Brunner "The Crucible of Time" (1982)
Ben Bova "The Kingsman Saga" (a trilogy in one volume)
The above deal with near-earth scenes, using shuttles, chemical rockets,
etc. Nothing that is not possible by today's standards with a lot of $$$
These are just a few that I have lurking on my shelves. I have more in boxes.
--
sl...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu // gl...@cs.utexas.edu **** Glen A. Graham ****
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't want to achieve immortality through my work. I want | Fools wander,
to achieve immortality through not dying. --Woody Allen | Wise men Travel.
BRETT
Although they had FTL, the time that passed for those inside a ship in hyperspace was much less then the time that passed outside. She mentions battles in which ships contiually exit enter hyper-space, chasing each other through starsystems. In real time, the ships would sometimes become involved in a battle that took years from the perspective of an outside observer.
R Clark x4971
>CJ Cherryh mentioned relativistic type effects in the "Chanur" series.
>Although they had FTL, the time that passed for those inside a ship in
>hyperspace was much less then the time that passed outside. She mentions
>battles in which ships contiually exit enter hyper-space, chasing each
>become involved in a battle that took years from the perspective of an
>outside observer.
>
As far as I know CJ has never really explained what is going on with time
inside ships during jump. Specificly in the Chanur stories the Hani
perceive the jumps to be instantaneous but fatigueing, as if some amount
of time were passing. Stsho (and humans) trank out, but when deprived,
also experience it as instantaneous.
On the other hand, the Kif are active during jump and could use the time
for scheeming or building widgets. And the Knnn ships perform maneuvers and
seem fully aware of events in both normal and hyperspace (ala ST where the
writers don't even understand that there is a difference between the 2)
Several of Niven's _Known Space_ stories are set before humans get FTL.
In particular, some of the _Man-Kzin War_ stories deal with STL interstellar
empires and conflict between them.
Richard Clark
rcl...@lpl.arizona.edu
Veltyen
As too books with Realitavistic Problems:
David Brin Sundiver, The Uplift War, Startide Rising
While FTL was possible, Relativity still held some way
A (approximate) quote from The Uplift War
(On an ambassador returning from a far away post)
Depending on what level ship he came back on, he would be back
in a couple of weeks, a couple of years, or not within
their lifetimes.
Sundiver also has a 200year old (~30ish ) returnee from the
first, slower than light, exploration ships.
All interesting...
Veltyen
Jeff R Contino
|> > travel which don't do FTL travel nor FTL communication? I would
|> > (and others may) be interested in reading such stories.
|>
|> Sure. One of Isaac Asimov's last books, 'Nemesis' (1989) was a stand-alone
|> book that used 'Today's technology'. A real good book.
|>
|> etc. Nothing that is not possible by today's standards with a lot of $$$
|> These are just a few that I have lurking on my shelves. I have more in
You better read 'Nemesis' again... Or do you work for some secret gov.
project that we all don't know abou? The station that left the solar
system first was skirting on the edge of hypersspace with 'hyper-assist
drive' I think it was called. The earth ship that followed was a true
'hyperspatial craft.' As a matter of a fact a significant portion of the
story was involved with the making of this ship and the relations of the
head physicist and what's his name???
Woops... I guess the sarcasm on this board is starting to rub off on me.
As for the problems with TNG. Sure it doesn't follow all the current
theories and laws of physics. It does however follow them better than
any deep space sci-fi series I know of. (okay, there aren't that many)
Give them a break. They still have to keep the ratings high enough to stay on the air. And face it,
those of us who are up on physics are in the minority. I work at a high
tech computer firm, and I'd say 75% of the stuff that you are all nailing
TNG for would slip past the mojority of the people here; And the percentage
of people who took college physics here is probably 10 times or more of the
average public.
Some times you just have to be practical; get a grip on reality; ride the
clue bus.. The show is too expensive to alienate all these viewers who would
switch the channel the minute an in depth discussion of most of these issues!
Anyway.. that's my .02.
diane kachmar
> |> >P.S.: Does anyone know of any stories involving regular interstellar
> |> > travel which don't do FTL travel nor FTL communication? I would
> |> > (and others may) be interested in reading such stories.
> |>
> |> Sure. One of Isaac Asimov's last books, 'Nemesis' (1989) was a stand-alone
> |> book that used 'Today's technology'. A real good book.
> |>
> > The above deal with near-earth scenes, using shuttles, chemical rockets,
> |> etc. Nothing that is not possible by today's standards with a lot of $$$
> |> These are just a few that I have lurking on my shelves. I have more in
>
> You better read 'Nemesis' again... Or do you work for some secret gov.
> project that we all don't know abou? The station that left the solar
> system first was skirting on the edge of hypersspace with 'hyper-assist
> drive' I think it was called. The earth ship that followed was a true
> 'hyperspatial craft.' As a matter of a fact a significant portion of the
> story was involved with the making of this ship and the relations of the
> head physicist and what's his name???
>
> Woops... I guess the sarcasm on this board is starting to rub off on me.
>
> As for the problems with TNG. Sure it doesn't follow all the current
> theories and laws of physics. It does however follow them better than
> any deep space sci-fi series I know of. (okay, there aren't that many)
> Give them a break. They still have to keep the ratings high enough to stay o
> those of us who are up on physics are in the minority. I work at a high
> tech computer firm, and I'd say 75% of the stuff that you are all nailing
> TNG for would slip past the mojority of the people here; And the percentage
> of people who took college physics here is probably 10 times or more of the
> average public.
>
> Some times you just have to be practical; get a grip on reality; ride the
> clue bus.. The show is too expensive to alienate all these viewers who would
> switch the channel the minute an in depth discussion of most of these issues!
>
> Anyway.. that's my .02.
I'm a working librarian, and my husband is an Operating Room Technician
at a large hospital - Both of us CRINGE whenever we see our professions
portrayed by "Hollywood". If you want reality, Don't watch TV.
My 0.03. Diane
Patrick Rannou
About shows which don't use FTL?
Well, I've seen BubbleGum Crisis (Japanimation), and even tough it
USES FTL, it does so in a special way: it shows the actual
view of the universe (from the ship PoV) in a semi-realistic
way, and the actual "hyperspace jump" is made in such a way that
if the computer does even a slight error of trajectory and ETA,
then the ship will arrive days, weeks or even years after "now".
In other words, at worst, if a ship makes a groos error on a 20 LY
jump, it will arrive 20 years afterward (even tough, to those aboard
the ship, they will have traveled only a few hours...
Interesting concepts... Tough I've yet to see a TRUE portrayal
of near light speed travel (see my next post)
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
My opinions cited in the previous article are really those of the
Ecole Polytechnique of Montreal, of the City of Montreal, of the
residents of the Province of Quebec, of all Canadians, of everybody
in North America, of everyone on the surface of the Earth, of any
living thing in the solar system, of any member of the 3rd Spiral
Arm of our Galaxy, of any existing entity in the entire Milky Way,
and come to think of it, why not also include altogether every single
being in the whole universe. This is, of course, to the exclusion
of Groo and my cat, who are too stupid to have an opinion. Since
this leaves the whole rest of the multiverse with other opinions,
it shows that my opinion is the same as a minority of people. CQFD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick "Paradak" Rannou
Ran...@info.polymtl.ca
Patrick Rannou
Q: I you are aboared a ship that goes STL but accelerates to very near
light speed, what appearance do the rest of the universe takes?
A: That's a long one...
First, we know that, because of the Doppler light-shift (yes, there
*IS* a Doppler effect with light, too, not just sound), that
appearance of the rest of the universe will vary according to the
angle the the direction you are looking compared to the direction
of travel.
/Direction you are looking
/
/
/
/
- - - - - - - - O - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -> Direction of Travel
Thus, for each possible angle between o and 180 degrees, you can
"imagine" a circle "drawn" on the universal sphere with it's
center corresponding to the axis of movement. On each center,
all points show the same appearance to all points on the same circle.
I suppose here that the universe is composed of a great number of stars
within the galaxy that DON'T move relative to each other... (or that their
movement is relativistically negligible). The universal sphere is thus the
projection of these stars on the interior of a sphere with the viewer at
the center and an inifinite radius. Simple enough? ;-) Then let's continue.
OK, now we know that we you move TOWARD something it's color
is blue shifted, and when you move the other way the color
is red-shifted. So, when you look sideways, what is the
color shift? Variable, of course, going from blue-shift to
red-shift, but not linear. i.e. the middle-point,
where the color is NOT shifted, doesn't stay at a 90 degrees angle from the
direction of travel. The exact amount of red or blue shifting depends on
the current speed, the faster you go the more shift there is. The
middle-point of no shift will be at a 90 degrees angle when you don't move
(naturally). But as you move faster and faster that middle point of no
shifting (I'll call it the zero-shift circle) will move FORWARD.
Don't ask me to give you the mathematic proof, just believe me.
It *is* so. Yes. You can understand it better if you think of the
Doppler shift NOT as sound wave but as the point where you pass
perpendicularly to the shifted object. Since object behind you, because of
the shift, appear FARTHER, and object in front of you appear NEARER, then
if you move like this:
Time 1 Time 2 Time 3
* * *
---O ------O ---------O
And you approximate the movement of the STAR relative to you (because in
realtivistic movement the viewer is ALWAYS the one who is considered
immobile, except of course when you accelerate but even that doesn't affect
much the way you _view_ things), you will NOT obttain this:
Time 1 Time 2 Time 3
*--- *------ *---------
O O O
Simply because when the object is in front of you, it seem nearer and when
it is behind you, it will seem farther (Doppler shift). THAT is due only to
the fact that it effectively take some time for the light to go from the
object to you. Thus, you will see:
Time 1 Time 2 Time 3
*---------
*------
*---
O O O
I.e. when the object is in front, I put it nearer, and when it is behind, I
put it farther. So, the trajectory of the object relative to me is NOT:
Time 1 & 2 & 3:
<---<---<---
O
It is:
Time 1 & 2 & 3:
________
\____
\__
\________
O (geee, I hate ascii. How I which Hypertext to become
a new world standard for ALL kind of files!)
Kinf of a reversed S which as been rotated... or which has had it's two
ends pulled strongly, the upper end pulled to the left and the lower end
pulled to the right. Thus when we look at the nearest point which *IS*
perpendicular to our starship, we find that this zero-shift-circle is not
at a 90 degrees angle but at less than that i.e. FORWARD of the ship.
Thus, the color-shift all around the ship is:
* a little * zero-shift-circle
red shift /
more red * / * a little blue shift
shift / * more blue shift
/
Maximum * - - - - - - - O - - - - - - - - - - - - > * Maximum Blue shift
Red shift
And the faster you go, the naroower the blue-shift cone gets (the wider the
red shift cone gets). Just before you "attain" C (which takes infinite
energy and is thus impossible), the blue shift cone is liike a toopick in
front of the ship: only the stars that are DIRECTLY in front of the ship
are "in front" (blue shifted). All other stars are red-shifted ("behind").
Pretty weird, but that's nothing. At high relativistic speeds, the shift is
so great that it's bigger than the current visible domain. i.e. a yellow
star that is blue shifted becomes bluer and bluer, then violet, then
ULTRAviolet, and thus disappear from view. Well, not exactly: the star also
gives off infrared rays (heat), which because of the blue shift first
became visible (red), then took an orange then yellow tint...
The faster you go, the more what you see correspond in fact to lower and
lower frequency of light. Eventually, you'll see only the radiowaves that
the star emits! On the back side, what you see of the stars you move away
from is so much red-shifted that the visible domain itself will go toward
radiowaves, and what you will effectively see will instead be the
ultraviolet, and then higher and higher frequencies of light, and
ultimately the X and cosmic rays that the star emits will become VISIBLE.
Since stars tend to emit less and less energy in the very low and very high
frequency ranges, at this incredible speed (just under C) stars start
becoming black (heck, the whole universe start becoming black!) except, of
course, around the zero-shift circle. To the viewer, it seems more like a
zero shift RING at that point. The faster you go, the more the ring moves
forward and becomes more concentrated. The ring isn't a clean-cut thing.
More like the farther apart you get from the middle of the ring, the darker
things get (and even then it's non linear). This "view of the universe
gets much darker and shrinks into a ring" thing appears of course only when
you are very very near C. In that case, the ring is a small circle in front
of the ship, where stars seem condensed, and the center of the circle is
black. Everything else (sideways and behind) is also black.
But before attaining such a speed, the ring isn';t clearly visible (it's
too wide or cover the entire universal sphere anyway). What *IS* visible is
the rainbow effect. Look again at the previous ascii picture. Suppose most
stars are white (all colors combined). Then the dominant color of a given
star is directly given by the shift in it. With real stars, the dominant
color vary from star to star but you simply have to take a given smal
section of the sky-sphere and take the mean value of the color of each star
to obtain the same effect.
We can now complete the previous ascii picture:
Thus, the mean colors of stars in a given sky-circle are:
* ORANGE * YELLOW
/ * GREEN
RED * / * BLUE
/ * VIOLET
/
INFRARED * - - - - - - - O - - - - - - - - - - - - > * ULTRAVIOLET
Of course, this varies with speed: at low speed the shift is only small and
thus you could get:
* YELLOW
* YELLOW-ORANGE /
| * GREEN
/
|
ORANGE * - - - - - - - O - - - - - - - - - - - - > * BLUE
While at very-nearC speeds you could get:
* ORANGE ___* YELLOW
___/ * GREEN
RED * ___/ * BLUE
___/ * VIOLET
_/ * ULTRAVIOLET
RadioWaves * - - - - - - - O - - - - - - - - - - - - > * X-RAYS
Finally, there is the matter of INTENSITY.
Suppose you move at near C and take 1 day to go to the nearest star
(4.7 light years). By the laws of conservation of energy, the energy you
SEE you get in that one day must be the same as the energy those not moving
relative to the star must see you get in 4.7 years.
One would suppose that this would mean that the one aboard the ship
suddenly receives much more "quantas" of light than the one not aboard the
ship (4.7 * 365.25 = about 1717 times more).
But we must also know that the very light that the guy receives is itself
more energetic because it's frequency has been shifted.
I am still not sure if this means that all things equalize. If anyone knows
relativity enough, I'd like to know if the front of the ship gets "much
more brighter" (a la Star Wars) and if the back of the ship gets much more
darker (black hole style). Give proof please, not just "I think it's this
way that it works".
Another thing I want to know: Does the Doppler shift itself induces a real
focal convergence i.e. do stars in front of the ship (in the blue cone)
seem more "packed", while stars in the back of the ship (in the red cone)
seem less packed than normal (i.e. than in the zero-shift ring)? Another
interesting question, I'm sure.
In all, this is just to mean that the galaxy itself would seem far
stranger if we moved relative to it (or vice versa) at a very high
relativistic speed! Just like a guy aboard a boat can tell at which speed
the boat is going simply by looking at the waves the boat causes in the
water, a spaceman could tell how fast his ship is going simply by looking
at the way his sky is "shifted"... ;-)
Ken Arromdee
>Well, I've seen BubbleGum Crisis (Japanimation), and even tough it
>USES FTL, it does so in a special way:
I don't think you meant BGC.
--
"On the first day after Christmas my truelove served to me... Leftover Turkey!
On the second day after Christmas my truelove served to me... Turkey Casserole
that she made from Leftover Turkey.
[days 3-4 deleted] ... Flaming Turkey Wings! ...
-- Pizza Hut commercial (and M*tlu/A*gic bait)
Ken Arromdee (arro...@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
is a kludge
ever in SPACE (None of the KS ever were) was to show some sexbots on an
L5 type space station in earth orbit...
Could you be thinking of Gall Force? I forget how FTL works there but
what you said sounds vaguely similar...
Bret D. Wortman: WordMan
> Yes, also by traveling very close to light speed and/or by using some
> kind of suspended animation, ageing should be sufficiently slow that
> new skill can be obtained (what do you (Bret) think -- all of us guys
> over 30 can't learn new skills? ;). Also, I envision a planned
> expansion (there will always be those who have to expand) in which
> little or no direct interaction between crews occurs -- when something
> new is discovered, it is immediately broadcast to the whole galaxy.
> Also, "crews" will not be there so much to perform some noble function
> for a "home world" as they will be doing it for their own
> self-interest, and because travel between the stars would beis the
> normal way of life (for these expansionists). If they find some place
> interesting, those interested could very well live out the rest of
> their lives there, with robots doing all the necessary life-supporting
> work. With such a planned expansion, there is no reason why a single
> species could not populate the entire galaxy in about 100,000 years.
> Since we are relative late-comers, we will find evidence of other
> travelers in just about every single place explored. Hopefully, a
> code of ethics that includes the avoidance of unnecessary destruction
> of living environments is a somewhat universal trait.
Since it wasn't readily obvious from my excerpt above, I grew to like
the possibilities *very much*. My inherent cynicism got the better of
me, though.
Truth be told, I've thought of little else than the possibilities
inherent in a "universe" in which time matters little since unless
you're actually *with* the person you're relating to, your timestreams
will be different (lengthwise).
*But* I disagree with you on a few subjects here. In the paragraph
above, *please* tell me you don't seriously believe FTL or
instantaneous communications are possible.... The paradoxes boggle the
mind.
Even more troublesome for me, however, is this statement:
>Yes, also by traveling very close to light speed and/or by using some
> kind of suspended animation, ageing should be sufficiently slow that
> new skill can be obtained [...]
You've missed my point entirely.
Let's assume that for each one year on a ship travelling at speed n,
ten years pass in the "stationary" universe. Therefore, in the one
year shipboard that you spend catching up on developments, ten *more*
years go by. After two shipboard years, you've still got eighteen
years of outside to take care of!
Now, for further complication, let's assume that the ship arrives and
is unaware of developments until that point. Okay, a one year flight
(for simplicity), ten years behind the times, a return voyage (with
that *one* year to catch up on ten), and again you find yourself ten
more years behind at journey's end! There is no catching up -- the
universe is moving by too fast around you.
I don't argue that we couldn't catch up. I'm not *that* far short of
30 myself. (:-) ) And it could be argued that not *all* of the
developments in a ten-year span would be critical. Possibly, one year
of concentrated study could catch you up on ten years' worth of
developments in the areas that concern you.
But what about *life*? What about living?
Possible _deus ex machinas_: Instantaneous learning (wimpy).
Suspended animation (boring -- assumes nothing much happens shipboard).
Static society (why bother, then?)
The conflicts inherent in the scenario are part of the attraction for
me. The very difficulty is what has my brain whirring overtime. But I
think that the solutions proposed thus far are far too simplistic and
either overlook vital facts or effectively reduce the conflict to nil,
resulting in a boring "universe".
WordMan
--
----------------------+---------------------------------------------------------
Bret D. Wortman |Lister: Love is what separates us from the animals
wor...@centurylub.com|Rimmer: No, Lister -- what separates us from animals is
wor...@decus.org |that we don't use our tongues to clean our own genitals.
----------------------+---------------------------------------------------------
Mike Johns
--
Mike Johns -------- jo...@ssd.comm.mot.com
"If you want to do buzzword oriented programming you must use
a strongly hyped language." author unknown (to me, not to him)
[mumble foo] opinions [mumble] not those of Motorola Inc.
Gregory R Block
: *But* I disagree with you on a few subjects here. In the paragraph
: above, *please* tell me you don't seriously believe FTL or
: instantaneous communications are possible.... The paradoxes boggle the
: mind.
That all depends on how much of current Quantum Mechanics and Physics
theory you believe. There's a whole set of theories that deal with FTL
particles.
Greg
--
(: (: (: (: Have you overdosed on smileys today? Why NOT!?! :) :) :) :)
(: "The angle of the dangle is inversely proportional to the :)
(: heat of the meat." -Beavis :)
(: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) Wubba :)
Bret D. Wortman: WordMan
totally lose track of this thread. BGC? KS? L5? Aaaaargh! ;-)
is a kludge
Gunbuster doesn't have time problems with ftl - it has messed up
special relativity tho...
mark
It used to occur in magazine lettercols, as well as at cons. It consisted
of someone picking faults with the science of a story, and the author, or
someone else, defending it. This could go on until everybody was either
a) satisfied that it was right, b) the author admitted he was wrong, or
c) everyone got fed up and dropped it.
In article <m03kcj...@bovina.cs.utexas.edu> gl...@cs.utexas.edu (Glen Anthony Graham) writes:
>In article <1993May24.1...@fcom.cc.utah.edu> v...@csulx.weber.edu writes:
<snip>
>>It is possible to do interesting stories without FTL travel. "Ender's War"
>>("Ender's Game" and "Speaker For The Dead") by Orson Scott Card dealt with
>>relativity. The drives on the ship were capable of zero to 99.9% of 'c'
<snip>
>First, Orson Scott Card did ignore one 'problem' about relativistic velocities.
>As velocity approaches the speed of light, mass increases to infinity. So,
>theoretically, a ship travelling at high relativistic speeds would have a
>mass so large that it could not accelerate or decelerate because they would
>not be able to cart that much fuel around with them.
Yes, but the *fuel* gains mass, as well, and therefore has more energy. The
result is that the mass increase is irreevant to the acceleration, only
relativistic physics comes into play. Also, decelerating wouldn't be a
problem even if what you suggest is true.
>
mark
mark
>Jonathan Roy (r...@eckerd.edu) wrote:
>: In article <noirC79...@netcom.com> no...@netcom.com (noel ang) writes:
>: >What exactly is "real" SF, anyway? Hard Science Fiction? And how does SF
>: >and Fantasy differ?
>
>: Hmm... This is a hard one, since it depends on one's opinion. At least
>: for me, I consider "hard" or "read" SF to be fiction set in the future,
>: or with new technology, but completely based on Science as it's known today.
>: The SF I read usually deals with how the new technology impacts society
>: or individual people... It's usually the science fantasy type stuff
>: that is more caught up in the technology itself.
>
>So, by your definition 'hard' SF can't have FTL travel/communication.
>There is alot about the physical universe that we don't know. This
>isn't a flame, but I would very much like for this group to discuss
>what is meant by 'hard SF'.
>
>Let me give a first approximation to a definition* of what I consider to
>be 'hard SF':
>
> 'hard SF': n., Fiction based on extrapolations of current scientific
> theories and hypothesis about what is and/or may be possible.
>
*sigh*
To quote a definition of sf that was in a book 20+ years ago, and included
discussion by Clarke, Heinlein, etc, (and I think it was RAH that I'm
paraphrasing, and no, I don't remember the book),
"sf is fiction where everything follows *all* known physical laws, *unless*
the violation of *one* of the laws is necessary for the story, and has
an explanation that doesn't grossly violate other known physical laws"
That ought to do as a description of hard sf.
>Whether these descriptions are inclusive or exclusive (Is fiction a subset
>of science fiction which is a subset of fantasy, or not?) is up for
>discussion. Precisely where the lines are drawn is the problem.
*OF COURSE* all fiction is a subset of science fiction, didn't you know that?
We just allow mainstream authors and critics to keep their cherished illusions,
and stay in their little ghetto.
(B-{^} (smiley'd for the humor-impaired)
mark
"The meek shall inherit the Earth; the rest of us will go to the stars"
"Anybody got a lift, man?" - me
Dennis Handly
> Yes, "The Forever War" by Joe Haldeman comes to mind, and there are
>probably others.
This book cheated by mixing wormholes and STTSofL travel between them.
The hero in the book was the oldest person in the universe because of
so much travel.
Also Tau Zero by Poul Anderson took it to an extreme. The ship was
so close to c that the next big bang occurred before they could slow
the ship down.
Bret D. Wortman: WordMan
> In article <1993May26....@centurylub.com>, Bret D. Wortman: WordMan (wor...@centurylub.com) wrote:
> : *But* I disagree with you on a few subjects here. In the paragraph
> : above, *please* tell me you don't seriously believe FTL or
> : instantaneous communications are possible.... The paradoxes boggle the
> : mind.
>
> That all depends on how much of current Quantum Mechanics and Physics
> theory you believe. There's a whole set of theories that deal with FTL
> particles.
>
Oh, I'm not disputing that there are mechanisms, but if you take into
account time dilation effects, you can easily get messages being
received before they're sent, and replies received before the original
messages were sent. Oddly enough, if memory serves, this does *not*
require FTL, just a fairly high, measurable velocity. I'm not a
physicist, just a mathematician/system manager, so I won't pretend to
completely understand it well enough to regurgitate it. :-)
Might wanna talk to hin...@physics.purdue.edu, he's got a *really* good
grasp on the subject. There was also a good article in Asimov's F&SF a
good while ago -- I'll try to find the relevant issue at home.
Alan Takahashi
>About shows which don't use FTL?
>
>Well, I've seen BubbleGum Crisis (Japanimation), and even tough it
>USES FTL, it does so in a special way: it shows the actual
>view of the universe (from the ship PoV) in a semi-realistic
>way, and the actual "hyperspace jump" is made in such a way that
>if the computer does even a slight error of trajectory and ETA,
>then the ship will arrive days, weeks or even years after "now".
Not to get too off the subject, but you must have watched a different
"Bubblegum Crisis" than I did. The one I saw had no deep space travel
at all...at most, we had shuttles between Earth and stations in orbit.
On the subject of STL travel, the last movie that I can recall that
had a pretty accurate depiction was Disney's "The Black Hole". That
is, until we started dealing with the black hole... :-)
-----
Alan Takahashi UUCP : ......!{portal,ames}!ntmtv!takahash
Northern Telecom Inc. ...!uunet/
Mountain View, CA INTERNET: taka...@ntmtv.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"When you need to knock on wood is when you realize the world's
composed of aluminum and vinyl." -- Flugg's Law
Ken Arromdee
> Oh, I'm not disputing that there are mechanisms, but if you take into
> account time dilation effects, you can easily get messages being
> received before they're sent, and replies received before the original
> messages were sent. Oddly enough, if memory serves, this does *not*
> require FTL, just a fairly high, measurable velocity.
Um, no, it doesn't require infinite velocity, it does require FTL.
Bret D. Wortman: WordMan
> In article <1993Jun2....@centurylub.com> wor...@centurylub.com (Bret D. Wortman: WordMan) writes:
>> Oh, I'm not disputing that there are mechanisms, but if you take into
>> account time dilation effects, you can easily get messages being
>> received before they're sent, and replies received before the original
>> messages were sent. Oddly enough, if memory serves, this does *not*
>> require FTL, just a fairly high, measurable velocity.
>
> Um, no, it doesn't require infinite velocity, it does require FTL.
I stand corrected. :-)