Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 22:57:13 -0500
Subject: Re: (urth) Wolfe physics
From: Michael Buice 


On Monday, August 18, 2003, at 10:10 PM, William Ansley wrote:
> (BTW, did you really mean to put the H in your IMHO?  I'm sure you 
> didn't mean to imply that you and only you have the absolute grasp of 
> physics necessary to judge if it is used properly in popular science 
> writing and SF, but you came across that way in your last two posts. 
> rather.)
>

	Sorry about that; to me the 'H' has always seems more or less 
self-mocking, displaying an awareness that the speaker is as much of a 
buffoon as the next person.  I do have strong opinions about how 
science is both delivered to and perceived by the public but I did not 
intend to present an insistence that all must without question accept 
my opinion as truth.
	I Humbly apologize for any offense.

	
> I'm with alga on this one. IMO the seams really show where Wolfe tried 
> to sew the New and Long/Short Suns together. And I'm not really sure 
> what the fact that Gene Wolfe is very good at presenting science from 
> the point of view of a non-scientist has to do with his trying to 
> combine too many disparate elements together, which I think he did, 
> especially in Short Sun.

	I may have lost the thread of the conversation, but I thought the 
discussion of inconsistencies stemmed from the 'One Ship' discussion 
which had been (to me) well-argued out of existence.  The trouble under 
discussion seemed to be the whole generation starship/FTL idea and 
which type the Whorl could have been based on the available 
technologies, etc.  Perhaps I'm the one whose sloppily sewing together 
disparate threads. :)

	Perhaps we could continue in manner more useful to all thusly:

	What specific instances in the Sun books do people see as being 
inconsistent as far as science and technology are concerned, in 
particular with respect to differences between the major works?

Michael


--