(urth) Hard SF

[DAVID STOCKHOFF]

Totally. I'm not sure why, then, you would classify Urth as "driven by a scientific premise."




>________________________________
> From: Lee Berman <severiansola at hotmail.com>
>To: "urth at urth.net" <urth at urth.net> 
>Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2012 11:35 AM
>Subject: (urth) Hard SF
> 
>
>
>>Andrew Mason: I think 'hard SF' is an essentially ambiguous term. It can mean what
>>Antonio says - I think Asimov defined it that way, for instance - or
>>it can mean SF which is scientifically accurate. It is widely used in
>>the latter sense as well.
>
>Thanks, Andrew. I think the recognition of both meanings is helpful. 
>
>I think Urth and its dying red sun qualify as hard SF in Antonio's/Asimov's sense
>of being driven by a scientific premise but doesn't qualify as being scientifically
>accurate. Would a sun that drastically diminished really still be able to support tropical
>jungles on Urth? I'd question the liklihood of any major plant growth under those conditions.
>
>I suppose you could make some sort of elaborate argument for how it could happen but I think
>Wolfe's red sun was more of a literary choice than a scienfific one.                           
>_______________________________________________
>Urth Mailing List
>To post, write urth at urth.net
>Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20121129/608e4142/attachment-0004.htm>