Poul Anderson and James Blish address technology and its effects on society. We have seen that their technological speculations encompass various alternative FTL drives and that both referred to Mach for this purpose. Blish had mentioned Mach, Einstein, Milne and his own fictional Haertel. In his second Jack Loftus novel, he adds Dingle!
In Milne's relativity, the light speed limitation is a mere mathematical convenience;
Dingle found two Einsteinian errors;
in 2011, Haertel showed that Einstein's relativity was a special case of Milne's relativity which was a special case of Haertel's own relativity;
in 2030, an FTL drive is one practical outcome of Haertel's theory;
in the 2050s, Jack Loftus and colleagues visit the Coal Sack nebula and the Heart Stars.
A project would be to write detailed accounts of every FTL drive in Blish's and Anderson's works.
12 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
I looked up Herbert Dingle, very interesting, I thought. And I've wondered if Poul Anderson ever mentioned Dingle in any of his works. Albeit, it's plain he disagreed with Dingle's criticisms of Special Relativity.
And one project I wish hope world scientists are working on is developing a theoretical FTL drive which I hope engineers can then turn into a practical REALITY!
Yet AGAIN, fanatical Muslims are making me VERY angry! I refer to the Manchester and Egyptian attacks/massacres. Increasingly, I find myself NOT CARING if most Muslims are "moderate," because they seem so unable or unwilling to control their fanatics.
Sean
Sean,
Unable, not unwilling.
Everyone,
Discussion of every issue is relevant here. We go from fascinating speculation about FTL to (unfortunately) horrific terrorism in Manchester. My first intimation was when I entered Birmingham Cathedral to see a notice about prayers for people in Manchester...
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
So, "moderate" Muslims are unable to control their fanatics? Then that raises questions I know many would prefer not be asked. Why are "moderate" Muslims unable to stop fanatics? Is it because the fanatics have solid theological grounds for perpetrating their atrocities? Is it because the most normative and binding doctrinal sources for Muslims (the Koran, hadiths, Sharia law, authoritative tafsirs, etc.) praises, approves, commends, commands, etc., Muslims to wage war on all non Muslims who refuse to SUBMIT (another very loaded word in Islam!) to Islamic rule? If the answers to these questions are "yes" (which is how I would answer them!) then very hard policies repugnant to the best values of the West will have to be seriously considered. Because we will have to finally admit we are at WAR with jihadist Islam.
What I further conclude is that "moderate" Muslims cannot control their fanatics because they have only a weak theological basis for doing so. So what good are they?
This too is relevant to the works of Poul Anderson. Because he saw THIS coming as long ago as HARVEST OF STARS. I recall how Anson Guthrie said in that book that all of Islam seemed to have again gone on the jihadist warpath. The lucky parts of the world would only suffer light skirmishing, the unlucky nations would get a blood tsunami.
Sean
Sean,
I think it is like Christians during the Troubles in Northern Ireland being unable to stop the terrorists in their communities.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I'm sorry, but I don't agree with analogy. What happened in Northern Ireland was terrorism perpetrated for SECULAR reasons. And I recall how some of the terrorists were actually Marxist atheists (such as the Provisional IRA). A struggle based on merely secular aspirations seems much more LIMITED than the claims and aspirations of the Jihadists (some of whom dream of conquering the entire world for Islam).
Sean
Sean,
A minority dream of this. Many people protest against the devastation caused by Western interventions and unfortunately some not only protest but turn to terrorism.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Unfortunately, this is a fanatical and DETERMINED minority. Small determined groups can change the world, for better or worse. Mohammed and his first followers were few and poor--and they ended up shaking or toppling ancient realms and conquering a vast empire. That is the model or example the jihadists have in mind.
And those so called "Western devastations" would be BENEFICIAL to nations impoverished and ruined by Islam. That is why the jihadists are so fanatically opposed to the West and Christianity--because these beliefs and ideals UNDERMINES Islam.
Sean
Sean,
But by devastation I meant the physical destruction caused by bombing. Also, I am not sure that Islam impoverishes and ruins.
Paul.
Sean,
"Islam" means submission to God's will as exemplified by many Biblical figures.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Understood, what you meant by "devastation." Unfortunately, we ARE at war, whether or not many of us admit that. And wars are always attended by devastation. And I don't agree the rather inept Western counter attacks has been utterly ruthless. In fact, nations like the US has tried very hard to minimize such devastation.
Besides reading the Koran, I have also read books about Islam as varied as Bernard Lewis' ISLAM AND THE WEST and Harry Austryn Wolfson's PHILOSOPHY OF THE KALAM, and I still drew the conclusion that Islam still brings only poverty and stagnation to the nations it overruns. Why? Because it believes "Allah" has revealed to it the best and most perfect ways of running all aspects of life. It advocates quasi totalitarian and theocratic goals as the ideal for all Muslims.
True, human cussedness and the rise of splits and schisms within Islam, such as that of the Shias and Sunnis, has lessened the threat it poses, but it remains.
And I deny the "submission" taught by the Bible in bot the OT and NT is anything like that preached by Islam. The Jews never claimed the right to conquer the entire world and to force Judaism on all mankind. And the NT taught ideas like rendering to God and Caesar what belongs to them SEPARATELY. In short, unlike the Koran, it is not theocratic.
Sean
Sean,
I agree about the importance of the difference between theocracy and church-state separation. As far as I can see, most British Muslims accept and live with the reality of church/mosque-state separation whatever their core documents say.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Yes, but I don't mean the harmless, non fanatical Muslims. I have in mind those Muslims who REJECT things like not merging mosque and state. Precisely because those "core" documents of Islam advocates theocracy puts "moderate" Muslims in a weak theological position. They are exposed to charges of being lax Muslims, of betraying Islam, etc.
So, I'm not as optimistic as you are. Pity!
Sean
Post a Comment