"sweet" <sweet430@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:yo2rc.49256$mX.18525516@twister.nyc.rr.com...

"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.

You obviously haven't read Jules Verne's "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea".
Capt Nemo's Nautilus was powered by electricity generated by an unknown
power source.  Verne never described the power source in his novel.  In
addition, "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea" was published in 1866, a quarter
century before physics even had an inkling that Newton laws of motion were
only correct at low velocities.  Verne wasn't a scientist.  Instead, he was
trained as a lawyer and had an interest in science.  Did his novels have "a
leg to stand on?"  Some, such as "Around the World in 80 Days" did.  Some,
such as 20,000 Leagues, were pure speculation that turned out to be close to
the reality scientists and engineers built later.  Others, such as "Journey
to the Center of the Earth", may remain forever in the realm of speculative
science fiction.  This is definitely a case of a non-scientist being very
imaginitive.

Please note that the above argument doesn't imply that scientists aren't
imaginative, only that they don't have a monopoly on imagination.

Mike.