Kevin's Watch

jRsT wrote:Oh wait, I did read Moving Mars...was pretty good, first half was somewhat boring though...

nailed it! I thought the second half was very good, but you're right 1st half borrrrrrring .

1st person perspective really limited him on how he told the story...funny cause I've read that 1st person is the easiest to write...

jacob Raver, sinTempter wrote:1st person perspective really limited him on how he told the story...funny cause I've read that 1st person is the easiest to write...

In some ways, first person is easiest to write structurally, and maintain consistency. It is hard to write if you want more than one very complex character [unless your first person is also somehow omniscient. People do it, but it's unsatisfying as a reader, at least for me]

Vraith wrote:It is hard to write if you want more than one very complex character [unless your first person is also somehow omniscient. People do it, but it's unsatisfying as a reader, at least for me]

I agree.

TheWormoftheWorld'sEnd wrote:Think about it this way: if you truly went back in time, the Earth which is always in motion would no longer be where you are standing.

Unless you went back through time and space.

TheWormoftheWorld'sEnd wrote:Unlike popular television sci-fi, however, this wormhole had more credibility in its functioning. It didn't transport you across the universe in a split-second, but (going by memory here) it was an extension of the asteroid burrowing through space/time. Time was relevant of course, but all events were "local," while for non-credible wormholes events are always "non-local." And since time is a factor, the farther you travel along the wormhole the farther back in time you go.

I think you are mistaken here, as most travel was forward in time (note that the asteroid came from an alternate future). For instance, the main character was deposited in an alternate future of Earth (I just checked the novel). Mirsky and other characters travel down the Way and venture into the future, not the past. Regardless, wormholes do not allow you to travel back in time unless you play around with special relativity (differential acceleration/velocities of wormhole ends - read Kip Thorne) which I believe the beings behind Thistledown did not do.

As for wormholes and credibility - well, wormholes are still entirely theoretical. Current research suggests that they would be extremely small and wouldn't last that long. Of course, Eon is dealing with an extremely advanced civilisation, but aren't we dealing with advanced civilisations in popular sci-fi (admittedly, I am not much of a fan of faster than light travel)?

Loremaster wrote:

TheWormoftheWorld'sEnd wrote:Unlike popular television sci-fi, however, this wormhole had more credibility in its functioning. It didn't transport you across the universe in a split-second, but (going by memory here) it was an extension of the asteroid burrowing through space/time. Time was relevant of course, but all events were "local," while for non-credible wormholes events are always "non-local." And since time is a factor, the farther you travel along the wormhole the farther back in time you go.

I think you are mistaken here, as most travel was forward in time (note that the asteroid came from an alternate future). For instance, the main character was deposited in an alternate future of Earth (I just checked the novel). Mirsky and other characters travel down the Way and venture into the future, not the past. Regardless, wormholes do not allow you to travel back in time unless you play around with special relativity (differential acceleration of wormhole ends - read Kip Thorne) which I believe the beings behind Thistledown did not do.

As for wormholes and credibility - well, wormholes are still entirely theoretical. Current research suggests that they would be extremely small and wouldn't last that long. Of course, Eon is dealing with an extremely advanced civilisation, but aren't we dealing with advanced civilisations in popular sci-fi (admittedly, I am not much of a fan of faster than light travel)?

Wow, I seem to recall Mirsky traveling into the past, although I admit to going purely by memory. So thanks for clarifying that for me. I just remember how weird it all was, especially at a point billions of years away.

For me, the wormholes of popular sci-fi are like faster-than-light travel, it simply isn't going to happen because they take no heed of SR but only of fanciful interpretations of popular QM. I was impressed by the Way because its theory encompassed both Einstein and Heisenberg, and I don't believe one theory trumps the other or explains the other.

I know wormholes are purely theoretical, all I'm saying is that if writers want to play with such theories then they should at least create them plausibly and not cartoonishly. Even Star Trek, which I respect, is cartoonishly inventive with its warp drive theory and transporter devices. The phase inducer theory from which the phaser weapon was produced is however more plausible, although I'll admit the phase inducer is also, for some reason, considered an essential component of warp drive and transporter technology.

TheWormoftheWorld'sEnd wrote:I know wormholes are purely theoretical, all I'm saying is that if writers want to play with such theories then they should at least create them plausibly and not cartoonishly.

Oh, I absolutely agree.

TheWormoftheWorld'sEnd wrote:Even Star Trek, which I respect, is cartoonishly inventive with its warp drive theory and transporter devices. The phase inducer theory from which the phaser weapon was produced is however more plausible, although I'll admit the phase inducer is also, for some reason, considered an essential component of warp drive and transporter technology.

I have to give credit to Star Trek for its Phase technology - a very clever way of explaining visible beams of light in space. And its warp drives actually make theoretical sense. I am not sure how transporter technology fits given the quantum world, but there are work-arounds (Quantum Entanglement).

Loremaster wrote: I have to give credit to Star Trek for its Phase technology - a very clever way of explaining visible beams of light in space. And its warp drives actually make theoretical sense. I am not sure how transporter technology fits given the quantum world, but there are work-arounds (Quantum Entaglement).

Well like I was saying, warp technology makes sense only if you ignore SR. But anything can be made to make arbitrary "sense" using QM, as you stated with your work-around hypothesis for transporter theory. This arbitrariness is what I called its cartoonish aspect. SR brings the arbitrary back to the laws of reality, even if it is still weird in its way because SR itself admittedly violates common-sense.

I think we hijacked Revan's thread. Sorry, Rev...

jacob Raver, sinTempter wrote:I think we hijacked Revan's thread. Sorry, Rev...

Dood, he posted it 8 years ago...

TheWormoftheWorld'sEnd wrote:

jacob Raver, sinTempter wrote:I think we hijacked Revan's thread. Sorry, Rev...

Dood, he posted it 8 years ago...

Urm.

K....which is the best Gap book and why?

This Day All Gods Die, no contest. That book is just one massive, rocketing climax, I could not put it down until I was sure nothing else was going to happen (a few hours staring at the book after I finished somewhat convinced me that it was really over )

I have to put 4 & 5 in a tie, tension-wise...but then 5 wins because it provides the resolution.
And, yea, Orlion. It feels over, satisfying. I always wanted more Chronicles after the first...I like the Gap series staying right where it is.

Orlion wrote:That book is just one massive, rocketing climax

Vraith wrote:It feels over, satisfying

ack!

Orlion wrote:That book is just one massive, rocketing climax

Vraith wrote:It feels over, satisfying