From: a70860@uwasa.fi (Carl Patrik Andila)
Subject: Re: [ADMIN]: lightbulbs, an' all...
Organization: University of Vaasa, Finland
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL7]
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 22:09:30 GMT

>  Steve Masticola (masticol@cs.rutgers.edu)
>> Dean  Blackburn (blackburn-dean@yale.edu)

        So, a new opinion, hopefully with fresh viewpoints in spite of
the word count. I am leaping into this thread in order to secure some
kind of consensus on how the havens-rest universe is set up before I
launch my character right after the christmas break. The intro will be
drawing on these issues for flavour and I would not like to contradict
other people's explanations too blatantly when I do arrive.

>>        Actually, I'm not a big fan of wormholes... But, assuming matter can
>>safely transverse them, why not light? Further assuming that one or

        If matter can, then photons should also be able to pass through.
Another unresolved question is whether gravity can act through these 
wormholes. (I hate them, but will tolerate them because they are already
firmly established (and provide easy plotlines).) If gravity does pass
through them as well, it raises some interesting points: 1) We may just
have found the black matter that the astronomists are so upset about,
2) As these wormholes are not permanent, consider the following cases:

A)      The system consists of two stars and one planetoid, planetoid at 
lagrange point.

        When a new rift appears (or an old one disappears), that is close
to a large mass (star, planet, black hole, whatever) -- the resulting 
gravitational pull (or lack of pull), will destabilize the system, which
will be not be appropiately after the change. The lagrange point method
can easily backfire at what amounts to a fourth body teleporting. I recall
that it was already established that the rifts are not permanent -- or 
even stable because otherwise the rift would be *VERY* strategically 
important for ANY state in the vicinity of another end of a rift.

B)      System consists of planetoid.

        Same as above, the planetoid might even be sucked through one of
the rifts -- or suck something else to it (now that is a plotline :-).
Still it is more manageable. If we presume that whomever built the place
possessed a thorough understanding of the rifts, they might have placed 
the planetoid close to some very strong and somewhat stable rifts. In 
effect this would make the planetoid safe, for a while, provided that
nothing unexpected happens. It is still not as stable a ground for multiple
stories to be fuonded on as I would like it.

---

        Further, do the rifts move about or are they stationary until they
disappear? If moving rifts, with gravitational pull in only one direction,
have to be taken into account the concept of a stable planetoid is flaky
at best. IMHO so is the entire concept of rifts -- not a stable foundation
for multiple stories by multiple authors.

        BTW how does it look/feel to pass through one of these rifts, as
I imagine it, it is just like passing through any hole -- nothing special
except for the change in scenery. Also, the edges of a rift are 
indetectable, except for the change in radiation level at the edge, stars 
visible through the hole seem to disappear at the edge and so on. 

        How do you others see the rifts -- 2D or 3D -- if they are planes/
curves what happens when one is approached from the back? If they are 3D,
is there something inside it or should I just stop asking questions ?-)

>>more of the rifts were placed sufficiently close to a star, no more
>>zero K problem. 
>That's a possibility I hadn't considered... but it needs work. The far
>ends of the wormholes would have to follow the stars. And if you
>REALLY still wanted to avoid day/night cycles, you'd have to put a
>diffuser in front of the wormhole.

        Why? You could have a spinning planetoid or even develop crops
(or is algae/synthfood the edibles of choice, I have seen no mention of 
farming) that can withstand constant light. Humans in need of rest could
go inside and turn off the lights. The light diffuser would probably not
be within the means of a fledgling colony -- especially not one that has a 
problem with menacing underground aliens and potentially dangerous ships
popping in just about all the time.

>>     Most of all, I think there's a time for science, and a time for science
>>fiction. If it doesn't help the plot, why bother? 
>First off, SF minus science is fantasy, and (as far as I currently
>understand) that's not what a.p.h-r is about. Part of the charm of SF
>is that _it_might_really_happen_. A good SF author can stay rigorously
>within the bounds of science, and can use the science to his or her
>advantage to create conflict, plot twists, color, etc. Read
>"Ringworld" or "Rendezvous with Rama" for some classic examples of the
>technique.

        I agree completely, there is ample room for imagination and 
innovation within the bounds of contemporary science. IMHO there is a need
to be catious not only with munchkin characters but also with munchkin 
science. The former can be removed without discontinuity by the use of
a well-placed tactical nuke or matter/anti-matter bomb if it is a serious
case. The latter are another kettle of fish altogether. 

>Only a poor SF author ignores the science to make his/her plotting
>easier. (And they're poor BOTH because they're ignoring the science
>AND because they're trying to make things cushy for themselves.)

>In specific, a decent author shuld be able to USE the suns in a plot,
>to his/her advantage. ("Power had just set when Spaceman Spiff sighted
>Haven's; Glory cast an eerie shadow of something huge and tentacled,
>following him.")

        Correct, however, there is no reason to be fanatical about this
a few extensions can radically improve/facilitate a story without doing
a great deal of harm. With "Ringworld" as an example: The FTL drive is 
impossible under contemporary theory -- still it greatly facilitated the
story, in a way that 3-400 years of relativistic travel could not. [Niven
admits to stretching it a bit in the foreword and gives the same reason.] 

        What made Niven's story work in spite of the FTL drive is that
the real focus of the novel, The Ringworld itself, does not violate 
theory -- neither does the gadgets used by the characters while on it.
The point I wish to make is that "extensions" to science are sometimes
appropriate, but should preferrably be based on real science, even tenously,
and should not be allowed to play a too central role in the story (note 
that I will not follow this last part completely myself, it is rather vital
to how my character came there in the first place -- remember that it is
supposed to be an interdimensional space so normal travel will not do.)

>>adding the suns, at least in
>>my meager opinion, creates more problems than it solves.  
>Look at them as opportunities, not problems. (You'll feel better. :)

        I tend to feel the same way about the wormholes, but will follow
the advice anyway. I would feel better about it if they were not just 
story-facilitators.
  
>>   Flame me if I'm wrong, but do it in mail. I never get any mail.
>This is not a flame, just a discussion. But I'll mail you a copy. :-)

        And as such I will accept any constructive criticism. Especially
if you find a flaw in my science, this is a *science* fiction newsgroup
after all.

--
Patrik (a70860@uwasa.fi).