quote:
Original post by Edward Ropple
ST "warp speed" has some vaguely scientific rhetoric for it, but the problem with it isn''t that it''s scientific, it''s that it doesn''t seem plausible . If you read Clarke, Niven, Heinlein, or any other SF author that puts effort into hard SF, and then take a look at that sort of thing, it just doesn''t seem to fit. It''s understandable - it''s aimed at the masses more than "real" SF readers - but what seems to be a large percentage of those SF readers are also gamers. I find it pretty irritating when a game (or book, or movie, etc) trots out gee-whiz gadgets that simply show a blatant disregard for the laws of nature.
"But the abolition -- or merely the reduction -- of inertia is quite another matter, and may be completely impossible. But it''s a nice thought.... Frankly, I don''t know how ''Star City'' could manage without it..."
"One of the assumptions I have made in this novel is that Einstein is correct, and that no signal -- or object -- can exceed the speed of light. A number of highly mathematical papers have recently appeared suggesting that, as countless science-fiction writers have taken for granted, galactic hitchhikers may not have to suffer this annoying restriction.
On the whole, I hope they are right -- but there seems one fundamental objection. If FLT is possible, where are all those hitchhikers -- or at least the well-heeled tourists?
One answer is that no sensible ETs will ever build interstellar vehicles, for precisely the same reason that we have never developed coal-fueled airships: there are better ways of doing the job.
.
.
.
My suggestion that a
Star Trek transporter would still be unavailable in 3001 may therefore appear ludicrously shortsighted a mere century from now, and the present lack of interstellar tourists is simply due to the fact that no receiving equipment has yet been set up on Earth. Perhaps it''s already on its way by slow boat..."
both (lengthy) quotes are from the "Sources and Acknowledgements" section at the end of "3001: The Final Odyssey". The ellipses at the very end of each quote are Clarke''s, the rest representing omissions on my part. The italics on Star Trek are Clarke''s as well, but are not intended as emphasis.
Why did I quote this? First, it shows that Arthur C Clarke has included ideas that are likely impossible according to modern physics (reduction of inertia) because it made the story work (Star City needs it to function). Second, it shows that he doesn''t find the idea of FLT travel implausible, just perhaps less practical than other means.
