(urth) Problematic element in chronology

[António Pedro Marques]

Gerry Quinn wrote:
> From: "António Pedro Marques" <entonio at gmail.com>
>> Gerry Quinn wrote (30-05-2011 19:36):
>>> From: "António Pedro Marques" <entonio at gmail.com>
>>>> I think it's reasonably obvious: he visited a red sun, he saw a red
>>>> sun in
>>>> the sky, bingo, he thinks they're the same. That's just one possible
>>>> explanation which I find more plausible than a GW oversight.
>>>
>>> I find it hard to see why he would pick on a particular red star.
>>
>> How many are there, recognisably red, in his sky?
>
> I don't know. There are twenty or so dim red stars in our sky, but most
> are variables. Still, even if there is only one, I don't see why he
> should assume that that particular star must be Sol without having some
> reason to do so other than its colour. And why would Wolfe deliberately
> have him make this mistake?

It was my impression he makes a very similar mistake (in structure) 
somewhere else, but I can't put my finger on it.

>>>>> I think he either (1) didn't think of this point,
>>>>
>>>> Not in character.
>>>
>>> I disagree, it is not a very obvious point.
>>
>> I find it obvious as can be in context.
>
> We must agree to differ then. I didn't think of it immediately at all.
> One has to make a link between relativistic time dilation and the
> distance travelled, which isn't the direct link usually made in popular
> accounts. I don't remember anyone bringing the matter up.

I think it was even discussed recently. Not to take anything away from you, 
but those familiar with astronomy - I'm not - would probably see it at once. 
That's why I find it so strange that GW would overlook it.

>> I do find the relativistic speed of the Whorl troubling *if* it comes
>> from the Whorl's technology alone.
>
> Where else would it come from? There's no indication that it was
> anything other than a personal propject of Typhon's. Besides, if he
> could have called in favours from aliens to build or drive it it, why
> could he not have done the same with regard to building a modest orbital
> space heater? (Could double as a weapon, frying enemies like ants -
> Typhon would have loved it!)

Oh, I meant the relativistic voyage could be something for which the Whorl 
had only provided the ignition, but was then maintained by exploiting some 
trick of space-time or something.

>>>>> or (3) thought it would be cool to have Sol visible even if the
>>>>> physics
>>>>> doesn't work.
>>>>
>>>> ...and thought to himself there would be no dearth of possible
>>>> explanations so let's do it. Mirrors? Folded space-time?
>>>
>>> There's quite a dearth of explanations arising naturally out of the
>>> story!
>>
>> This is the guy who thinks there's an obvious explanation in the story
>> for Apu Punchau's miracle.
>
> I don't remember talking about Apu Punchau, or whatever this miracle is.

The 'guy' I meant was GW.

> But anyway, if you can think of an obvious explanation, by all means
> let's hear it!

For instance, I find Sergei's speculation - that the Whorl didn't go 
straight to Green/Blue, which doesn't mean it stopped along the way - just 
an example of how our assumptions may be too simple.

>>> We know of know sun-like stars that we just happen to see at twenty
>>> times
>>> the distance they wuld normally be visible.
>>
>> Sorry, I didn't get this sentence.
>
> The second 'know' should have been 'no' (I don't no why I make such
> typos, but I am often catching them!)

Ok. I meant there was nothing stopping us finding explanations that don't 
involve violating science but we just don't have the imagination to do it. 
It's not unlike the Gordian Knot. '- Oh, no, Alex can't have untied the knot 
because science tells us it can't be untied.' '- Uh, he cut it.'

>>>>> I think Wolfe is quite happy to gloss over lots of dodgy science if it
>>>>> fits the story (realistically, it's obvious - leaving aside physics
>>>>> for
>>>>> the moment, absorbing not just memories but *memories coordinated
>>>>> into a
>>>>> personality* by eating corpses is obviously impossible.
>>>>
>>>> So we think, but then again it's not like we've much of a portfolio to
>>>> show as a species.
>>>
>>> I think that Wolfe knows this is not really possible
>>
>> But hoe do you know it isn't? Of course it isn't given our
>> understanding of how it works in our universe, but what have we got to
>> show for ourselves that gives us the authority to say 'this is
>> impossible'?
>
> If we can't say this is impossible, we know nothing at all, and I don't
> accept that.

No. We can say red blood cells aren't miniature firemen. What we can say 
about memories or personality is much weaker.

>>> but happily wrote it
>>> anyway. I think he strives for scientific versimilitude when he can, but
>>> such versimilitude is far from perfect. And why should it be - he is
>>> writing
>>> science fiction stories, not science textbooks. If the science were
>>> correct
>>> readers could reasonably ask for their money back!.
>>
>> The more so since correct science is something that hasn't been
>> observed in the wild.
>
> I disagree. For example, I think "Stars are distant suns" is correct
> science. They are not holes in a celestial sphere letting in the light
> of Yesod, or candles held by floating angels, or some such alternative
> explanation.

'Stars are distant suns' was science once, nowadays it's data as it can be 
directly observed. It's being data that makes it 'correct'.

> Wolfe has said various things like "how do you know a godling cannot be
> 50 feet tall, and just constructed differently from humans?" And that is
> fair enough. Nevertheless, I think he misses or decides to ignore
> scientific facts quite often when the story demands it. One example
> discussed some time ago was the angular velocity of the Whorl and its
> effect on floaters. It was generally accepted that these are
> incompatible with the size of the Whorl. But Wolfe wanted the Whorl to
> be big, and he was satisfied with science that had the appearance of
> possible versimilitude (if that is not a redundant expression, but I
> think people will know what I mean). He doesn't want anything to scream
> "this is really impossible", but I, at least, don't think the visibility
> of Sol from Blue screams that, even if it is an unusually clear
> difficulty once one spots it.

Again, I think he goes to great lengths not to contradict basic science, 
which I think that's how it should be. It appears our only difference is in 
judging the importance of this specific detail. But even we agree that there 
is little one can conclude, story-wise, from it.