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)