Re: Hard Sci-fi?

Niels wrote:

> 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.

Not sure what you're getting at here.  It's been a while since I read 
the book, but as I recall the suggestion that the Machine didn't work 
was part of a political coverup.  There was really no question that the 
trip actually took place.

The screenplay of the movie is really completely different, and chose to 
emphasize the trip (or not) as a personal journey and emphasize the 
notion that the trip may not have taken place by people with purely 
political motives.  The rationale given for how the trip could have been 
faked wouldn't work, and at the end of the movie there is a strong 
indication that Ellie is at least partially vindicated (by the digital 
recorder).

-- 
Erik Max Francis && max@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
  San Jose, CA, USA && 37 18 N 121 57 W && AIM, Y!M erikmaxfrancis