Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site mit-eddie.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!mit-eddie!nessus From: nessus@mit-eddie.UUCP (Doug Alan) Newsgroups: net.sf-lovers Subject: Re: Discrepancies (ftl travel and so on) Message-ID: <4577@mit-eddie.UUCP> Date: Sat, 29-Jun-85 05:43:46 EDT Article-I.D.: mit-eddi.4577 Posted: Sat Jun 29 05:43:46 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 30-Jun-85 02:30:51 EDT References: <2039@iddic.UUCP> <483@gitpyr.UUCP> <389@ttidcb.UUCP> <73@rtp47.UUCP> <2062@iddic.UUCP> Organization: MIT, Cambridge, MA Lines: 25 > From: rick@iddic.UUCP (Rick Coates) > The reason that faster-than-light is acceptable is that it is explained, and > has rules. The use of faster-than-light travel in almost all SF is pretty assinine, because almost no SF story considers the full effect that a faster-than-drive would have on the world that is described in the story. According to Special Relativity, faster-than-light travel is exactly equivalent to traveling backwards in time: there is no difference. (This is similar to the way in which Special Relativity equates mass and energy as being exactly the same thing.) Thus, if faster-than-light travel is possible, time travel is possible, and thus causality is violated. But how many SF stories that have faster-than-light travel, consider these extremely important ramifications? It is pretty silly that SF stories use faster-than-light travel, because almost any story that does use it could be easily rewritten to use parallel universes instead, without these problems. "You'll see... you'll find one in every car!" Doug Alan nessus@mit-eddie.UUCP (or ARPA)