Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site topaz.ARPA Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!ihnp4!cbosgd!cbdkc1!desoto!packard!topaz!JAFFE From: JAFFE@RUTGERS.ARPA Newsgroups: net.sf-lovers Subject: Re: Discrepancies (ftl travel and so on) Message-ID: <2523@topaz.ARPA> Date: Mon, 8-Jul-85 16:30:47 EDT Article-I.D.: topaz.2523 Posted: Mon Jul 8 16:30:47 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 9-Jul-85 07:17:57 EDT Sender: daemon@topaz.ARPA Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J. Lines: 24 From: peora!joel (Joel Upchurch) > 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? > > Doug Alan > nessus@mit-eddie.UUCP (or ARPA) Actually Heinlein used exactly that premise in 'Time Enough for Love', but most 'FTL' drives in SF don't literally assume you can go faster than light. They use 'warp drives' through 'Hyperspace', which is usually defined to be an alternate universe of some sort which has a one-to-one mapping onto our universe, but is much smaller. There are many variations on this theme, of course. So there is no violation of Relativity.