Re: Hard Sci-fi?

On Saturday 03 May 2008 20:51, Wayne Throop wrote:

> : Ben Crowell <crowell08@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> : I guess it depends on what you mean by "possible." My definition of
> : hard SF would be that it has to be possible in the sense that it
> : doesn't violate those laws of physics that have already been
thoroughly
> : verified within their realm of applicability. The FTL in Contact is
> : "possible" in this sense.
> 
> Hm.  Don't think so.  The widget used to create a wormhole endpoint
> (or at least... that's' what I remember it doing) is nowhere near
> massive or energetic enough.   It seems squarely within the realm
> of applicability of newtonian/maxwellian physics, but it went and
> produced a wormhole anyways.  Unless it really *was* a fake.

We don't know how the machine is supposed to work, and neither do the
people
who build it. So they, correctly, conclude that it wont work.

> In which case it really wasn't FTL at all, and all it had to do
> was mess with the memories of people falling through it, etc.
> 
> Or maybe I'm conflating the movie version.  Sigh.
> 
> Wayne Throop   throopw@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
   http://sheol.org/throopw

The movie was so expensive that they could only afford a one person worm
hole. The book was far cheaper, and so they could send an entire team
trough.

//Niels