"Michael D. Ober" <obermd.@.alum.mit.edu.nospam> wrote in message
news:_5Wqc.3096$be.1887@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...

Actually, good science fiction takes current knowledge and speculates from
it.  That's why science fiction tends to get dated - our knowledge grows

but

the fiction is already written.  Arthur Clarke described communications
satellites years before Echo I.  Jules Verne described space flight and
nuclear submarines a century before we had either.  Gene Roddenbery's

"Warp

Drive" may not be so far fetched, after all.  In 1994, theoretical physict
Miguel Alcubierre published

(http://www.astro.cf.ac.uk/groups/relativity/papers/abstracts/miguel94a.html

) a feasible method for FTL travel that resembled Roddenberry's Warp

Drive.

Yes there are problems with his concept, but FTL travel can exist under
General Relativity.  These are just a few examples of how science fiction
has led physics.  There are more if you care to dig for them.

As for someone who only does science - how boring!  In fact, top science

and

engineering schools (MIT, CalTech, Stanford, etc.) very rarely admit
students who only do academics (science).  They look for students who have
other interests as well because they know that non-academic interests are
important.

Mike Ober.

Mere speculation. Without the science first, science fiction wouldn't have a
leg to stand on.

This point implies that scientists can't think beyond their science. I guess
it's true if one ignores the millions of publications trying to extend that
science. It's very ironic that only the artsy types can imagine... as if
scientists are dullards who live in a box.

As far as I am concerned the science is always first and it is the artists
who lag behind.

So far this thread is chicken/egg-like. One could only prove either side by
checking publication dates of all articles and "publication" dates of all
books and movies. Without that evidence then this is a moot discussion.

"Elvis has left the building."
-sweet