XPost: rec.arts.sf.written   
   From: throopw@sheol.org   
      
   ::: I think the problem is you don't understand relativity either, and   
   ::: just d= on't get what the objection is about.   
      
   :: I don't think so but on the chance that either one of those   
   :: possibilities is true, could you put the argument in a clear,   
   :: uncluttered fashion, so that I can look at it afresh?   
      
   : Under relativity, velocities DO NOT ADD LINEARLY.  Period.   
      
   Well, the context is, "what if relativity isn't true".   
   The problem is, the context is also "libby has just demonstrated that   
   reality follows even unintuitive little quirks of mathematical models.   
      
   So, you can look at it from three points of view.   
   First, what's Libby likely to say/think in response to that question?   
   He just got done demonstrating that he thinks reality will follow the   
   mathematical models, even when this is counterinntuitive. But in saying   
   "well, maybe if we just accelerate abit more, we'll get FTL", he's   
   demonstrating that he doesn't know what the mathematical models are.   
   This is only plausible if the *author* doesn't know what the mathematical   
   models are.   
      
   Second, what's the reader supposed to think of this?  In terms of conveying   
   to the reader what's going on, either in Libby's head, or in the relativistic   
   model of their situation, the presentation absolutely sucks.  The simplest   
   explanation is that the author doesn't understand the relativistic model   
   of their situation.   
      
   Third, suppose that, contrary to the context Libby established, and   
   ignoring what readers may think of things, the notion here is, they are   
   all curious to verify relativity, just for yucks.  This is perhaps the   
   least-implausible interpretation of the scene.  But in that case, their   
   conversation is absolutely bizarre, and they should be talking about   
   what observables they could check, and monitor, and such.  The simplest   
   explanation is that the author skips over that because he doesn't *know*   
   what observables they could check and monitor, so clearly he can't have   
   his characters mention it.  One might say, he didn't want to bore the   
   reader, but grounding it in reality wouldn't be any more boring than   
   what he did do, which was seemingly ground it in misconceptions.   
      
   So, you can shift around from various viewpoints, and try to model the   
   author's intention in all manner of ways, but the bottom line is, the   
   scene sucks from a plausible-science point of view, and you can rescue   
   that only by supposing all these competent people are complete idiots.   
   Or at least implausibly ignorant.   
      
   It all boils down to a bit of mathematics.  Geometry, if you will.   
   Relativity says (among other things) that space is isotropic.  This should   
   be obvious to Libby.  So the question of "what happens if I accelerate   
   along this course" should immediately provoke the thought "same as if   
   you accelerate in any other direction; you're equally far away from   
   lightspeed in ALL directions" should appear in his reply somewhere.   
   Indeed, the very notionof "along this course" in a context of relativity   
   should provoke the kind of quibbling Libby brings to the simultaneity   
   issue later on, because it's fundamentally ambiguous.  But it doesn't.   
      
   And if he's focussed on testing relativity, he should be looking for   
   details of anisotropy, perhaps dealing with redshift, etc, etc, and   
   not be all vague and "what about the women and children aboard" (or at   
   least, not before considering something specific that could go wrong.   
   That these things don't occur is incongruous in the extreme.  If you   
   don't find it incongruous, then you're not following the implications   
   of relativity in this circumstance.  IMO.   
      
   Basically, considering relativity, you can only come up with a sensible,   
   positive interpretation of the scene *in* *spite* *of* what's presented,   
   not naturally *because* of what's presented.  The scene reeks of   
   prefered-frame preconceptions beginning to end.   
      
   Conntrast this with Vinge's "The Witling", where there's a passing comment   
   about discovering an anisotropy in teleportation that proves relativity   
   incorrect. (Not that Vinge doesn't make science gaffes on many an occasion,   
   but still.)   
      
      
       If you're wondering how he eats and breathes and other science facts,   
       Just repeat to yourself "It's just a show, I should really just relax".   
      
             --- MST3K theme song   
      
      
      
   Wayne Throop   throopw@sheol.org   http://sheol.org/throopw   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)