Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About mea1top

  • Rank
  1. Yes, agreed - I think fiction has a vital role in extending knowledge and interest of science - so it's incumbent on fictional creators a) to actually include it! and b) to get it right.
  2. actually that's a good question that I like - I have a personal interest - I have a novel about Newton with an agent at the moment - and one of my purposes was (as a non-scientist) to understand the basics well enough and to get that across accurately in the novel - and also just to express my wonder and excitement at the basic ideas and concepts that Newton was expressing. I was also interested just to know about relativity and whether this was accurate. But yes, I think you're right - with SF you can get away with more! (But yes, I'm disappointed with fiction that either doesn't even try to convey the science (and just focuses on the scientists' love life or what-have-you) or that actually gets it wrong!
  3. yes, exactly - sorry if it wasn't clear I attached the whole quote since it was too long to include in the box - and this is exactly the bit that looked wrong to me. yes, I agree - but the screenplay seems to suggest that the slowing clock is caused by the delay in light reaching the other person - which is surely wrong? Someone else has answered this below. thanks yes, I think that's a given - it's a piece of fantasy - a what if? but no suggestion that that part is historically accurate Sorry - to avoid confusion there is an ATTACHMENT above called "insignificance" with the full quote in it - I had to attach that since the box wouldn't accommodate the full quote. actually, I think what I meant was this - if it was ONLY about the fact that there is a delay in the light reaching the other person, wouldn't that person just say to herself - oh well, it's taken light a minute to reach me, therefore in fact he has the same time as me, if I add on that minute? Does that make sense - or am I going up the wrong tree. I think I understand and agree with your other point - which I think is mine too - that time delay and time dilation have been CONFLATED and CONFUSED with each other - is that right?
  4. Just curious - as a non-science major - the Nicholas Roeg film has a scene in which Marilyn Monroe explains special relativity to Einstein. But I have a feeling the explanation is wrong - please see script below - wouldn't, on this basis, each observer conclude that the other observer had the same time reference - the only issue being the amount of time light takes to reach each one, which can be accounted for by each? I've had to attach it as the script extract is too long otherwise. Thanks for your views! Script: Insignificance.docx
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.