XPost: alt.usage.english, rec.arts.sf.written, rec.arts.books   
   From: robban@clubtelco.com   
      
   On 12/09/13 5:47 PM, Peter Moylan wrote:   
   > On 12/09/13 16:36, Snidely wrote:   
   >> on 7/25/2013, Steve Hayes supposed :   
   >>> On Thu, 25 Jul 2013 07:37:58 +0800, Robert Bannister   
   >>>    
   >>> wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>> I would have thought that most people who read SF&F are aware that   
   >>>> FTL, time travel, telepathy, etc. do not work and cannot work. Back   
   >>>> when I was twelve, these were all thought to be possibilities.   
   >>>> Moreover, although only a few really knew the details of real science   
   >>>> at the time, it was possible to understand the broad ideas, and   
   >>>> Asimov and others spent a lot of time explaining them. Modern science   
   >>>> is way beyond the imagination of those not involved.   
   >>   
   >> Hmmm.  I'm not sure that Stephen Hawking is that hard to read, at least   
   >> in _A Brief History of Time_ and _The Universe in a Nutshell_.  I've   
   >> only dabbled in George Gamow, but his books made an impression on the   
   >> public, especially the public that was buying science fiction.   
   >   
   > I've read Hawking, but I've also met many people who gave up on his   
   > books, as being too difficult to understand.   
      
   I must admit I thought inventing a special calculus just to prove that   
   FTL can't work did seem cheating to me, but I felt I had to believe him.   
      
   >   
   > When we understand something ourselves, we don't always appreciate why   
   > other people can't follow it.   
   >   
      
   When it comes to modern particle physics, however, I tend to throw up my   
   hands.   
      
      
   --   
   Robert Bannister   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)