(urth) Problematic element in chronology

[Sergei SOLOVIEV]

Moses made Jews wander 40 years through Sinai. If you take the shortest 
way, it is
at most a few hundred kilometres. What makes you think that the Whorl had
taken the shortest path to its destination? It could very well go with 
relativistic
speed and make a detour. It seems also that the plan might include that 
the Whorl
will come back and repeople Urth (Ushas) after the floods etc. - in the end
of the Short Sun cycle it is going to be repaired and travel again - to 
go where?
Some hints are also in the end of "The Urth of the New Sun".

Sergei

António Pedro Marques wrote:
> Gerry Quinn wrote (30-05-2011 19:36):
>> From: "António Pedro Marques" <entonio at gmail.com>
>>> No dia 28/05/2011, às 19:42, "Gerry Quinn" <gerryq at indigo.ie> escreveu:
>>>> From: "António Marques" <entonio at gmail.com>
>>>>> Gerry Quinn wrote:
>>
>>>>>> On Blue, SilkHorn explains to prospective astral travellers that 
>>>>>> they
>>>>>> can, if they peer for some time, see a dim red star - this is of 
>>>>>> course
>>>>>> Sol, etiolated by the black hole inside it.
>>>>>
>>>>> But we only have the narrator's word for it, and the narrator isnt
>>>>> omniscient.
>>>>
>>>> True enough... but in most Wolfe including all of the Solar Cycle, we
>>>> only have the narratopr's word for *everything*. One has to ask why he
>>>> should lie, or make a mistake? And if he hasn't seen the star, why 
>>>> should
>>>> he say it is visible, whereas if he has, why should he mistake a
>>>> particular star for Sol?
>>>
>>> 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 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.
>
>>>> (2) supports a 350-year chronology between Typhon and Severian,
>>>
>>> Makes no sense to me.
>>
>> Hard to know. I don't think he does either, but then again 350 years is
>> plenty time for a lot of autarchs. Overall I do think the Whorl was 
>> intended
>> to travel relativistically, and the Urth time since launch is between 
>> 1000
>> and 2000 years, but I don't think 350 years is impossible (and it would
>> solve the problem of why Typhon, with the energy to drive the Whorl
>> relativistically at his disposal, did not use a fraction of this 
>> energy to
>> replace the diminished heat of the Sun!)
>
> I do find the relativistic speed of the Whorl troubling *if* it comes 
> from the Whorl's technology alone.
>
>>>> 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.
>
>> 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.
>
>>>> 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'?
>
>> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> Urth Mailing List
> To post, write urth at urth.net
> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net