Bill Pragnell wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>>> we can control gravity without using a
>>> centrifuge. I think this is more unlikely than FTL travel
>> Given these are both based on relativity, why would one be more likely than
>> the other?
> 
> I wasn't aware we had any theories at all that might give us arbitrary gravity
> control. I'm a bit behind on my cutting-edge physics though so perhaps I missed
> it.

Well, we're looking for the Higgs right now. We have zero theories that 
would give us FTL.  The closest we have, "Warp drive," assumes you're going 
to frob gravity around to make it happen.

Actually, there's also the wormhole bit with "exotic matter", but it turns 
out "exotic matter" means matter with negative mass, so again it's intertwined.

> I've certainly not read any SF that offered any explanation for gravity other
> than sheer mass, whereas there's lots of genuine relativity-driven FTL travel
> ideas knocking around. 

I haven't seen any well-founded FTL mechanisms that don't assume it's done 
through manipulation of gravity. Wormholes, black hole travel, exotic 
matter, space warps... all gravity effects.

> Well it was a bit of a mishmash. But they had proper acceleration tanks, and I
> couldn't fault Sam Neill's pop-rendition of GR...

Fair.

>> Also: Equilibrium.
>> Also: Mission to Mars (altho the movie itself was not that great)
> 
> Equilibrium was far too naked (and dumbed-down) a rip-off of Farenheit 451 +
> 1984. 

Plot-wise, maybe. The acting was excellent, tho.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message