FTL without paradoxes?

Dave

Custom title not found
Staff member
Supporter
Joined
Jan 5, 2001
Messages
17,886
Location
Way on Down South, London Town
#81
It isn't inappropriate. I just find it amusing. Since, in the absence of any empirical science, you are both probably going to be some time, I'll get a beer and pull up a chair.

However, I think the opening question has been fully answered. We are now going where no man has gone before. Maybe it should be a new thread.
 

Joshua Jones

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 6, 2017
Messages
934
Location
Maryland, USA
#87
Cathbad, I could’ve sworn that was fairies. I think angels are bigger so the numbers are fewer.

I could be wrong, though.

But I don’t think I am. :)

pH
Except that angels have better balance, and they are smart enough to stack on top of one another's feet, so the numbers are about right. Some classes, like Cherubim, can make whole pyramids... Archangels tend to knock over everyone else, though.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Apr 24, 2018
Messages
1,001
#88
It isn't inappropriate. I just find it amusing. Since, in the absence of any empirical science, you are both probably going to be some time, I'll get a beer and pull up a chair.
I guess you probably have passions/interests that other people simply call "amusing".
 

Brian G Turner

Fantasist & Futurist
Staff member
Supporter
Joined
Nov 23, 2002
Messages
21,964
Location
Highlands
#89
So why hasn't anyone from the future dropped by to say hello?
The Prime Directive prevents it. :)

I guess you probably have passions/interests that other people simply call "amusing".
It's difficult not to read that as somewhat rude. Try to chill out a little. :)

In the meantime, are we discussing FTL, or shall I split the discussion of angels on a pin into a new thread?
 

Dave

Custom title not found
Staff member
Supporter
Joined
Jan 5, 2001
Messages
17,886
Location
Way on Down South, London Town
#90
Sorry, I hadn't intended to derail the thread with jokes, merely to point out the absurdity of a thread that began by shaming writers for writing fiction not based upon proven Physics, but is now arguing theoretical Physics which can only ever be hypothetical. Yes, I do find that absurdity is amusing, but it is perfectly valid as a discussion for science fiction writers. It just isn't what the OP was really asking for.
 
Joined
Apr 24, 2018
Messages
1,001
#92
Sorry, I hadn't intended to derail the thread with jokes, merely to point out the absurdity of a thread that began by shaming writers for writing fiction not based upon proven Physics, but is now arguing theoretical Physics which can only ever be hypothetical. Yes, I do find that absurdity is amusing, but it is perfectly valid as a discussion for science fiction writers. It just isn't what the OP was really asking for.
I'm sorry, I had thought the OP was looking for a discussion of how real physics could be referenced to write a plausible FTL story using wormholes. After we talked about the problems, several solutions were talked about specifically or obliquely:

1. Wormhole being solitary event.
2. The wormholes being tied somehow so closely to one reference frame that the users can't interact outside that reference frame until at least the light speed-limited time period has passed.
3. That the wormhole users might end up in an actual different universe branch due to the many worlds time travel "solution".
4. Weird effects - more subtle and hard to detect prohibitions on the movement of information in paradoxical directions. Odd malfunctions, unpredictable wormhole events swallowing ships, losses of memory or time.


I don't know who "shamed" anyone about physics. If you ask someone "does this work with physics?" the answers are yes, no or maybe - and all three are valid fiction writing solutions.

I am detecting just a tiny bit of shade being directed at those that would want to construct a "hard SF" solution to a common SF trope, as if being concerned about such things is beneath those that consider themselves writers. But writers can choose whatever degree of realism and detail they want, which may involve nailing down a dialect (recent thread), getting historical clothing correct or worrying about how people in the past viewed outsiders. I just don't think the minutia in this thread is any more or less amusingly absurd than Jamaican Patois or 11th century soft soled shoes.

But I may be entirely incorrect for thinking that. Maybe that is not reasonable discussion on even a SF board and Dave the Moderator is trying to tell me something? ;)
 

Dave

Custom title not found
Staff member
Supporter
Joined
Jan 5, 2001
Messages
17,886
Location
Way on Down South, London Town
#93
I don't see that any discussion is an "unreasonable" discussion to have. I do question this is what Travis was asking for, but he must answer that, and "this" discussion itself should probably be somewhere else. I do see a big difference between discussing history and theoretical physics though, and that is to do with evidence and proof, but I might be wrong too. Please do carry on.
 

Phyrebrat

ba-Ba-ba-brat
Supporter
Joined
Feb 13, 2011
Messages
4,077
Location
In your bedroom wardrobe...
#94
Tbh Onyx, you derailed the thread when you called out Dave for his comment.

People tend to communicate a certain way on this forum; genial and rarely peevish. Certainly not passive/aggressive.

pH
 

Joshua Jones

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 6, 2017
Messages
934
Location
Maryland, USA
#95
The Prime Directive prevents it. :)



It's difficult not to read that as somewhat rude. Try to chill out a little. :)

In the meantime, are we discussing FTL, or shall I split the discussion of angels on a pin into a new thread?
And I apologize for continuing the joke about angels; my intentions were along the same lines as others mentioned above. And, as a student of theology and philosophy, I appreciated the reference.

So, the point I was trying to make from the outset is that it is possible that the light cone theory misses a critical point, and if so, you could well have prolific FTL without paradoxes, though some junior officers may think there are paradoxes, which could be used for comic effect in story. Or, you could simply ignore that possibility, either through having characters who are not scientists and don't think along those lines, having a necessary communications blackout for FTL, or a score of other possibilities. You could even lampshade the whole thing by having a physicist onboard, explaining it in brief, and the commander saying "I don't care much about a pair of dachshunds or whatever; we have aliens to fry." I love hard sf, but you don't have to show everything to make it hard sf, and often, it is better if you don't. We are writing fiction, not textbooks on theoretical physics; if it doesn't serve the story, it doesn't need to be said, even if it is there in the background. Unless, of course, you want to say it. It's your story.
 

goldhawk

aurea plectro
Joined
Nov 18, 2008
Messages
695
#96
So, the point I was trying to make from the outset is that it is possible that the light cone theory misses a critical point, and if so, you could well have prolific FTL without paradoxes, ...
You can indeed. All that is required is a preferred frame of reference. A good choice would be the CMB. The speed of our galaxy compare to it is about 600 km/s.
 
Joined
Apr 24, 2018
Messages
1,001
#97
Tbh Onyx, you derailed the thread when you called out Dave for his comment.

People tend to communicate a certain way on this forum; genial and rarely peevish. Certainly not passive/aggressive.

pH
Then I'm sorry. I thought Dave was being passive/aggressive calling those participating "amusingly absurd". I'll exit the thread and reset my geniality meter.
 

zmunkz

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2015
Messages
377
Location
USA
#98
Then I'm sorry. I thought Dave was being passive/aggressive calling those participating "amusingly absurd". I'll exit the thread and reset my geniality meter.
I admit, I felt that vibe a little too, which is why I withdrew thereafter. I actually thought the conversation prior to that was very fascinating. In any case, I suppose we have covered the OP, so maybe the thread has reached its natural heat death anyway.
 

Phyrebrat

ba-Ba-ba-brat
Supporter
Joined
Feb 13, 2011
Messages
4,077
Location
In your bedroom wardrobe...
#99
I was enjoying reading the thread myself, although I have to admit to being completely flummoxed at the physics and all that, and had to read the posts several times, very slowly.

I've found that since I joined here, I've learned (learnt?) so much - not just about writing - but especially things like this and other philosophical points. VenusianBroon can certainly attest to that as he's my go-to for anything relating to theoretical physics and stuff like that.

However, as I really only write weird/horror fiction, I can get away with my blissful ignorance. (I shan't tell you the embarrasing thing he had to correct me about frictionless shoes allowing someone to go uphill in a short I recently wrote :D .)

Often I wonder how more robust my understanding of the topics on show here would be if I hadn't failed my GCSE physics.

However, if you want something about Jamaican patois, or pidgin, I'm your man ;)

pH
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Top