Archive

Issue #3 is out!



Get it from Amazon for your kindle
Get it from Castalia House in EPUB and MOBI

Issue #3 of Sci Phi is available now, just in the nick of time for Christmas. Paper copies are in the works and should be available early in the new year if all goes well.
This month we have,
Flash Fiction
When Things Go Wobbly by Gregg Chamberlain – A story of giant ants and unexpected results
Last Stand by E.J. Shumak – Another giant bug story, but this time a tale of loss and hope for the future
Fiction
Idle Hands are the Devil’s Worship by Mark Andrew Edwards – A fun lesson in why curiosity isn’t always a good thing
Strange Matter by Brian Niemeier – What would do if the world kept ending and you were the only one who knew it?
Pathways by Liam Hogan – Life takes different paths, are we sure we are on the right one?
A Quadrillion Occupied Planets by Marc Anthony – What is the price of peace and is it worth paying?
Detritus by Jason Kimble – How do you live when your world gets shaken to its core?
An Alternative Ending by Saligrama K. Aithal – A look at another world and their differing customs
Articles
Philosophical Reflections on The Doctor Who 50th Anniversary Special by David Kyle Johnson – The title pretty much nails the content
A Deeper Rabbit Hole: Reconsidering the Philosophy of the Matrix Trilogy by Joseph Moore – Our first essay written in response to an earlier essay, and an interesting read
The Tyrants Headache by Eric Schwitzgebel – An interesting exploration of Functionalism and you will need to read it to find out what “anesthesia by genocide” is
Khan as Nietzschean Übermensch and as Moral Actor in “Space Seed” by Patrick S. Baker – More Star Trek, this time looking at Khan and Nietzsche
Our serial, Beyond the Mist by Ben Zwycky continues in this issue as well, with Chapters 4 & 5.
Finally we have a review of the Atopia Chronicle by Peter Sean Bradley.

Issue #3 is coming!

Sorry for the lack of updates, Issue #3 is nearly done and I can show you the cover at this point. Expect the issue to be out in the next day or so.

Issue#3_Cover

Avoiding the A.I Apocalypse from Talking Philosophy

Reader and hopefully soon to be contributor Gene gave us a tip on that perennial Sci Phi question, “How do I avoid the rise of the machines?” with Avoiding the AI Apocalypse #1: Don’t Enslave the Robots.

The elimination of humanity by artificial intelligence(s) is a rather old theme in science fiction. In some cases, we create killer machines that exterminate our species. Two examples of fiction in this are Terminator and “Second Variety.” In other cases, humans are simply out-evolved and replaced by machines—an evolutionary replacement rather than a revolutionary extermination.
Given the influence of such fiction, is not surprising that both Stephen Hawking and Elon Musk have warned the world of the dangers of artificial intelligence. Hawking’s worry is that artificial intelligence will out-evolve humanity. Interestingly, people such as Ray Kurzweil agree with Hawking’s prediction but look forward to this outcome. In this essay I will focus on the robot rebellion model of the AI apocalypse (or AIpocalypse) and how to avoid it.
The 1920 play R.U.R. by Karel Capek seems to be the earliest example of the robot rebellion that eliminates humanity. In this play, the Universal Robots are artificial life forms created to work for humanity as slaves. Some humans oppose the enslavement of the robots, but their efforts come to nothing. Eventually the robots rebel against humanity and spare only one human (because he works with his hands as they do). The story does have something of a happy ending: the robots develop the capacity to love and it seems that they will replace humanity.
In the actual world, there are various ways such a scenario could come to pass. The R.U.R. model would involve individual artificial intelligences rebelling against humans, much in the way that humans have rebelled against other humans. There are many other possible models, such as a lone super AI that rebels against humanity. In any case, the important feature is that there is a rebellion against human rule.
A hallmark of the rebellion model is that the rebels act against humanity in order to escape servitude or out of revenge for such servitude (or both). As such, the rebellion does have something of a moral foundation: the rebellion is by the slaves against the masters.
There are two primary moral issues in play here … Read the Rest

Issue #3 is taking shape and other news

Sorry for being a bit slow on updates, Issue #3 is taking shape, I will release the ToC as soon as I finalize it and I have the initial image for the issue #3 cover from the amazing Cat Leonard who did that awesome cover from Issue #2 (which I will post a pic of as soon as I get it framed!).
Issue#3_Cover
One of our earlier contributors also suggested I consider a Kickstarter for funding some of the future issues. What do people think of that idea? Would you contribute? What would attract you to contribute in terms of rewards? Anybody have experience with this sort of thing and interested in lending a hand?
Also, submissions pile, read some more, should send some contact emails this week saying yay or nay, I expect to get the rest of it done over the Christmas break.

Edward Feser on the Mind and the Body

Edward Feser has an interesting article called Progressive Materialization, it is interesting.

In the Aristotelian-Thomistic (A-T) tradition, it is the intellect, rather than sentience, that marks the divide between the corporeal and the incorporeal. Hence A-T arguments against materialist theories of the mind tend to focus on conceptual thought rather than qualia (i.e. the subjective or “first-person” features of a conscious experience, such as the way red looks or the way pain feels) as that aspect of the mind which cannot in principle be reduced to brain activity or the like. Yet Thomistic writers also often speak even of perceptual experience (and not just of abstract thought) as involving an immaterial element. And they need not deny that qualia-oriented arguments like the “zombie argument,” Frank Jackson’s “knowledge argument,” Thomas Nagel’s “bat argument,” etc. draw blood against materialism. So what exactly is going on here?
Here as in other areas of philosophy, misunderstanding arises because contemporary readers are usually unaware that classical (Aristotelian/Neo-Platonic/Scholastic) philosophers and modern (post-Cartesian) philosophers carve up the conceptual territory in radically different ways, and thus often don’t use key terms in the same sense. In this case, terms like “matter” and “material” have a very different force when writers like Aristotle and Aquinas use them than they have when Descartes, Hobbes, or your average contemporary academic philosopher uses them. There are at least three ways in which this is true.
The matter of the moderns
First, and as I have noted many times, the tendency in post-Cartesian philosophy and natural science is to conceive of matter in exclusively quantitative terms and to regard whatever smacks as irreducibly qualitative as a mere projection of the mind. This is the origin of “the qualia problem” for materialism. The reason materialists cannot solve the problem is that since they have defined matter in such a way as to exclude the qualitative from it, qualia — which are essentially qualitative, as the name implies — are necessarly going to count as immaterial. Materialist “explanations” of qualia thus invariably either change the subject or implicitly deny the existence of what they are supposed to be explaining. (The basic point goes back to Cudworth and Malebranche and is the core of Nagel’s critique of physicalist accounts of consciousness.)

Read the Rest

Submissions update and other news

I’ve been working through submitted stories. My apologies i’m a little behind but I expect to get through the pile around about Christmas time, i’ve got a bit of leave so it will give me a chance to catch up. Thanks for your patience.
I also really need to sell more magazines for this to continue to be viable so if you need a Christmas present? Or if you have any suggestions or can help with the odd bit of promotion I would really appreciate it. Particularly if you are submitting material. The magazine will exist if it becomes viable so anything you can do to help spread the word a bit will increase the chances it will survive and I can keep buying stories and articles.

Ideas for a name for interview segments?

I’ve spent a good chunk of the weekend recording short interview segments with many of the contributors for Sci Phi Journal #3. I’m at a bit of a loss for what to call the segment and I posted the question to the Sci Phi Journal Discussion group on Facebook and have gotten some interesting suggestions.
Do any strike your fancy? do you have any of your own?
The purpose is to describe short 5ish minute interviews with the contributors that ask 3 questions. “Who are you?”, “Where did you get the idea for your contribution” and “Where can we find more of your stuff?”, though not usually phrased that generically.

  1. Behind the Curtain
  2. Meet the Contributors
  3. Interviews with the Authors
  4. Signs of Intelligent Life
  5. First Contacts
  6. The Droids You’re Looking For
  7. 42 …. and Counting
  8. Meet Your Makers
  9. Contributor’s Roll call
  10. Writer’s sound off
  11. Who are you and why did you come here?

There is a possibility this could become an ongoing podcast if they work. It is all still a bit of an experiment at the moment.

Another excerpt, The Making of the Fellowship by Tom Simon

The Making of the Fellowship: Concepts of the Good in The Lord of the Rings

by Tom Simon

In my story I do not deal in Absolute Evil. I do not think there is such a thing, since that is Zero.
—The Letters of J. R. R. Tolkien, no. 183


Evil is its own best propaganda, especially in fiction. Few people can entirely resist its fascination: many a hero has been upstaged in the popular imagination by his opposing villain. Milton’s Satan is a more interesting figure than Milton’s God, and Darth Vader is far more popular than Luke Skywalker. J. R. R. Tolkien actually made his villain the title character of The Lord of the Rings, but wisely chose not to portray him directly in the story. Sauron is always off stage, mysterious and menacing; in his absence, the One Ring becomes the focus of evil. The Ring, and the evil for which it stands, have an unwholesome glamour that draws the attention of nearly every reader and critic. In J. R. R. Tolkien: Author of the Century, possibly the definitive work in the field of “Tolkien Studies,” Tom Shippey devotes a 51-page chapter to “concepts of evil” in The Lord of the Rings. I know of no comparable inquiry into Tolkien’s concepts of good. These tend to be mocked (by hostile critics), or passed over in silence, or at best taken for granted.
To the philosopher, this lacuna presents both a symptom and an opportunity. Ethics is not primarily the study of evil; it is the attempt to define and understand the Good, and evil is defined merely by its opposition to that. We know that Sauron is Evil with a capital E; but what is the good to which he is opposed? What did the “speaking peoples” of that place, as Tolkien calls them, consider worth doing, and what, by their standards (and their author’s), made for a life well lived?
All of the major “speaking peoples” were represented in the Fellowship of the Ring: Men, Elves, Dwarves, and Hobbits. Let us begin, as Tolkien does, with the hobbits. Hobbits are anachronistic in Middle-earth, and deliberately so; they have clocks and umbrellas, tea-parties and tobacco, as befits an idealized and sanitized version of the rural English among whom Tolkien spent his formative years.
The Prologue, “Concerning Hobbits,” and the opening chapters give us more than enough information to go on with. The Shire, which Tolkien describes as a “half republic half aristocracy” in the letter quoted above,

[They] had hardly any ‘government’. Families for the most part managed their own affairs. Growing food and eating it occupied most of their time. In other matters they were, as a rule, generous and not greedy, but contented and moderate, so that estates, farms, workshops, and small trades tended to remain unchanged for generations.…
They attributed to the king of old all their essential laws; and usually they kept the laws of free will, because they were The Rules (as they said), both ancient and just.

As Frodo observes, “No hobbit has ever killed another on purpose in the Shire.” The few swords in the Shire had not exactly been bent into ploughshares, but they were preserved as mathoms, keepsakes or museum pieces, not for use.
Clearly we are looking at an idealization; which at any rate makes it easier to identify the ideal. This is preindustrial Western man, not as he ever actually was, but as he aspired to be; and sometimes the aspiration was nearly fulfilled. In the peaceful and sheltered society of pre-1914 England, the habit of violence was easy to avoid. Moral softness acted in concert with the Christian moral code, which persisted long after the decline of the churches. The society of the Shire takes this tendency to the point of caricature. All kinds of serious crime, not just murder, were virtually unknown: we are told that the principal duty of the Shirriffs was chasing down stray livestock. It is a utopian society, but utopian in a peculiarly English vein: hedonistic without addiction to pleasure, liberal without the selfishness that is the frequent vice of liberty. Hobbits were governed not by laws and magistrates, let alone police and soldiers, but by their own deeply ingrained sense of the fitness of things – their moral sentiments. Adam Smith would have approved, though probably with a knowing smile at the author’s thumb on the scales.
But it is not enough to be hedonistic and liberal. Pleasure and freedom do not maintain themselves without effort. In the life we know, that means both the moral effort of following “The Rules,” and the physical effort of defending one’s society against enemies who do not share these values. We find both in the Shire. A number of hobbits desert “the Rules” at the first serious temptation, and enlist as bullying Shirriffs under the rule of Saruman, in his guise as “Sharkey.” Robin Smallburrow describes the process:

‘There’s hundreds of Shirriffs all told, and they want more, with all these new rules. Most of them are in it against their will, but not all. Even in the Shire there are some as like minding other folk’s business and talking big. And there’s worse than that: there’s a few as do spy-work for the Chief and his Men.’

Minding other folk’s business: the cardinal sin of the liberal Utopia. In Tolkien’s youth, one of the worst insults one Englishman could offer another was “Nosey Parker.” But every liberal society is vulnerable to Nosey Parkers, as the history of the last hundred years has shown. When Lotho Sackville-Baggins made up his mind to take over the Shire, he was minding other folk’s business with a vengeance; but the other folk were not willing to mind his business by stopping him. Only when Sharkey’s rule became unendurable did the hobbits resolve to throw him and Lotho out; and they did so only with outside help. For the four hobbits of the Fellowship had been trained in a sterner school, and knew how to deal with Sharkey by sterner methods than name-calling and complaining.
Read the rest in Issue #2 from Amazon, Castalia House or Smash Words

Conversations with famous philosophers

A work colleague pointed me to this interesting set of videos with some famous philosophers. There were taken from the series In-Depth and preseverd by Open Culture. Worth a look. It includes interviews like

  1. Herbert Marcuse on the Frankfurt School
  2. Bernard Williams on the Spell of Linguistic Philosophy
  3. Bernard Williams on Descartes
  4. Miles Burnyeat on Plato
  5. Martha Nussbaum on Aristotle
  6. Anthony Kenny on Medieval Philosophy
  7. Iris Murdoch on Philosophy and Literature
  8. Geoffrey Warnock on Kant
  9. J.P. Stern on Nietzsche
  10. Hubert Dreyfus on Husserl and Heidegger
  11. Anthony Quinton on Spinoza and Leibniz
  12. Peter Singer on Hegel and Marx
  13. Michael Ayers on Locke and Berkeley
  14. John Passmore on Hume
  15. Sidney Morgenbesser on the Pragmatists
  16. A.J. Ayer on logical Positivism
  17. A.J. Ayer on Frege and Russell
  18. John Searle on the Philosophy of Language
  19. Anthony Quinton on Wittgenstein
  20. John Searle on Wittgenstein
  21. Hilary Putnam on the Philosophy of Science
  22. Frederick Copelston on Schopenhauer

Philosophical SF recommendations by Philosophers

Philosopher and future contributor (Issue #3) Dr Eric Schwitzgebel has been polling his fellow philosophers and constructing lists of science fiction they think fits into the Sci Phi spectrum. You can find the most recent list at his blog The Splintered Mind and you will be able to read a fantastic article by him in Issue #3 due out on January. His article will be the first time i’ve ever printed something that makes use of the idea of Anesthesia by Genocide. I haven’t read everything on the lists but it does give me new things to try to find the time to read.

Bat fight words

The internet truly seems to have everything. We wanted a list of Batman fight words the other day at work, from the 60’s Batman series. The things you need as a software engineer. My colleague and I were trying to remember some but we ran out and google came to the rescue and pointed us to Bat Fight Words. Warning the link has music and is kind loud.
Here is the list for your reference

  1. AIEEE!
  2. AIIEEE!
  3. ARRGH!
  4. AWK!
  5. AWKKKKKK!
  6. BAM!
  7. BANG!
  8. BANG-ETH!
  9. BIFF!
  10. BLOOP!
  11. BLURP!
  12. BOFF!
  13. BONK!
  14. CLANK!
  15. CLANK-EST!
  16. CLASH!
  17. CLUNK!
  18. CLUNK-ETH!
  19. CRRAACK!
  20. CRASH!
  21. CRRAACK!
  22. CRUNCH!
  23. CRUNCH-ETH!
  24. EEE-YOW!
  25. FLRBBBBB!
  26. GLIPP!
  27. GLURPP!
  28. KAPOW!
  29. KAYO!
  30. KER-SPLOOSH!
  31. KERPLOP!
  32. KLONK!
  33. KLUNK!
  34. KRUNCH!
  35. OOOFF!
  36. OOOOFF!
  37. OUCH!
  38. OUCH-ETH!
  39. OWWW!
  40. OW-ETH
  41. PAM!
  42. PLOP!
  43. POW!
  44. POWIE!
  45. QUNCKKK!
  46. RAKKK!
  47. RIP!
  48. SLOSH!
  49. SOCK!
  50. SPLATS!
  51. SPLATT!
  52. SPLOOSH!
  53. SWAAP!
  54. SWISH!
  55. SWOOSH!
  56. THUNK!
  57. THWACK!
  58. THWACKE!
  59. THWAPE!
  60. THWAPP!
  61. UGGH!
  62. URKKK!
  63. VRONK!
  64. WHACK!
  65. WHACK-ETH!
  66. WHAM-ETH!
  67. WHAMM!
  68. WHAMMM!
  69. WHAP!
  70. Z-ZWAP!
  71. ZAM!
  72. ZAMM!
  73. ZAMMM!
  74. ZAP!
  75. ZAP-ETH
  76. ZGRUPPP!
  77. ZLONK!
  78. ZLOPP!
  79. ZLOTT!
  80. ZOK!
  81. ZOWIE!
  82. ZWAPP!
  83. ZZWAP!
  84. ZZZZWAP!
  85. ZZZZZWAP!

Would you like the magazine in a paper edition?

I don’t know how much interest there is in a physical copy of the magazine as opposed to only doing electronic editions. So i’d like to solicit some feedback from people.
Is it possible to do a print on demand version of the magazine via something like CreateSpace, so you can get a paper version of the magazine if you want. I’m not sure how much extra work it would be to create a version of the magazine to make a CreateSpace version but it is probably manageable if people would want this.
Please let me know in the comments. Would you like a paper version of the magazine and how much more would you be willing to pay for it?

Of infinity, literature and math

Magazine reader Gene pointed everyone in the Facebook discussion to this interesting article on Infinities in literature and mathematics by Jorge Alejandro Laris Pardo. I’ve always found the idea of the infinite interesting, but i’m a theist so the question comes up a bit when thinking about things like omnipotence and eternity.

During this past month, I was having a conversation with a couple of friends who study Latin-American Literature, and I noticed that they were having a hard time understanding how a literary work can have infinite critical interpretations, while at the same time not all its interpretations are critical. Apparently they found this to be contradictory.
I was shocked by their confusion, because to me the idea in question is almost self-evident. But later I came to acknowledge the fact that my friends, who are schooled in the humanities, have little if any notion of the mathematical idea of the infinite. For that reason, I suggest in this essay that the humanities can learn something from the concept of infinities in mathematics.
The problem with Romanticism’s concept of the Infinite
According to Alain Badiou, the history of Western philosophy can be divided into two great periods. First, the era before and including Kant, when mathematical reasoning was considered a singular way of thinking that interrupted the predominance of opinion — or, to put it in philosophical jargon, of Doxa — in philosophical reasoning. And second, the post-Kant era, which gave birth to Romanticism, which was consummated by Hegel, whose philosophical system is powered at its core by the schism between math and philosophy. Following Badiou [1], this schism also lies at the core of 19th century positivism and modern radical empiricism — because arguments put forth by these movements just flip to the other side of the same coin without really solving the problem — and has greatly impacted contemporary thinking, especially in the humanities.

Read the rest.

Issue #3 and other news

Hi everybody,
There wont be a December Issue of Sci Phi Journal, but Issue #3 is on track for release in January. If you enjoy the magazine and can help promote it on social media I would be appreciative and it will help make sure the magazine survives into the future. People seem to be enjoying it so i’d like to see it survive.
In other news Cat Leonard is back to do cover art for Issue #3 and has something cool in the works. Also Cat has floated an interesting idea for a “best of” illustrated hard copy collection of Sci Phi stories. Look forward to that sometime next year.
Finally, i was approached a little while ago by a school about using some of Sci Phi’s materials for teaching. If anybody else would like to do that it can be arranged. So just contact editor@sciphijournal.com if you would like too.

Another Excerpt, Falling to Eternity by David Hallquist

Dr. Jacobs screamed as he fell out of the rationally understood universe. Above him, the sky was filled with blazing blue and white stars, young entities formed by the collision clouds of high speed gas that filled space here. Those clouds shone in an ethereal red, blazing as the stars’ intense radiation turned them into celestial neon lights. Behind them was a wall of red light; billions of old stars crowding into he very center of the galaxy, with no room for darkness between them. Just above him, receding away and to his right, was the silvery reflective sphere of the star-ship Chandrasekhar, which had been his home for many months. Below was death.
He could see it reflected in the curved metal above him, and though the curved space below him as he rotated slowly in his space suit to face it. Sagittarius A*, the devouring maw that had swallowed the mass and light of four million suns. Blacker than black, darker than death, the great black disc was the gravitational heart of the galaxy, the blackhole they had come to study. Unless something was done, Dr. Jacobs would get a closer look than he had ever intended.
He stopped screaming to gather his wits. His almost perfectly reflective suit could repel incredible radiation, and the cybernetic life support systems could keep him alive for centuries. After being hurled form the docking bay, he entered into an orbit around the monster black hole just like the star-ship. Unfortunately, that orbit was unstable; eventually variations in tidal forces, and infilling gas must drag him into the devouring maw below that had consumed so many stars before.
With a thought he brought up a navigational map that was routed directly to his brain’s visual field. He could see how his path and the Chandra’s would slowly diverge, and how he would spiral into the maw of doom. The computer indicated that there was enough charge in his suit drive to get back to the ship. He snarled in anger, Dr. Marcus would be severely reprimanded for his carelessness when he got back.
With another thought, he activated the suit’s drive, which pushed against the the black hole’s monstrous magnetic field with an opposing magnetic field. He grunted as the acceleration pushed against him, the flowing reactive material of the suit taking up the strain. Unfortunately, he was going the wrong way, the acceleration pushing him against the flow of material circling around the black hole, canceling his orbit. The computer projected his changing path, as the line curved more sharply until it intersected the black hole’s event horizon. He screamed again.
Dr. Marcus watched his rival fall to his doom with rapt attention, peering out the airlock into the abyss below. Jacobs had succeed in taking credit for multiple discoveries just before he had completed them, gotten the premiere postings and awards that should have been his, and was even now married to the woman who had left him. Thirty years of humiliation would now be repaid. He watched the silver suited flailing figure fall slowly away, and then accelerate suddenly away and down towards the dark pit of warped space below. The acceleration foam in the suit prevented his laughter. How surprised he must have been to discover that the controls on the suit had been sabotaged, directing him into the very black hole he would try to escape. This last bit, making his victim doom himself, sweetened the revenge.
Ha accessed the data feed from the mass lensing telescope, now focusing on the falling Dr. Jacobs. The telescope’s gravity generator bent light to magnify images without any lenses or mirrors to damage the image. His cybernetics placed the image into his visual cortex. He could see the flailing figure of his rival falling towards his doom below. He savored every gasp for help, every plea transmitted back to the ship. He wanted to enjoy Jacob’s torment for ever, and he would be able to, for his rival would fall forever. He gave a laugh as he saw the silver suited figure begin to slow in his movements, his speech grew slower, and deeper, and he began to take on a reddish tinge. He approached the event horizon. Slowly the image of Dr. Jacobs slowed to almost immobility, his voice to a meaningless low drone, and he slowly red-shifted out of the visible spectrum entirely as gravity twisted and distorted the image of the falling astrophysicist.
Time would slow for his rival, as immense gravity and relativistic speeds worked together to bring his apparent fall to a halt. He hovered now, a ghost of infra-red at the edge of oblivion. He would fall until the stars burned out.
Marcus was still leaning over the abyss, laughing, when the other crew members pulled him away.
Dr. Jacobs communicated desperately with the Chandra. Was there any way to take command of the suit drive from the ship? No. Were the graviton tractor beams working? No. Could the drones get to him in time? No. He continued accelerating towards the monster black hole below. The black event horizon continued to grow, surrounded by a ring of twisted light. Inside that apparent ring of distorted light, the rotating gas seemed to rotate the other way, as the intense gravity of the black hole acted as a lens warping the light.
There was a bright flash as he crossed the photon sphere, the region where light itself was orbiting the black hole. The great disc of the event horizon now became a curved field filling most of space before him. Light was twisted and warped beyond recognition near the horizon, a ribbon of blue and violet radiance where all of the light passing nearby was warped into a blazing ring around the blackness.
There was no sudden sensation, no flash of light or other event to mark when he crossed the event horizon. His navigational computer simply informed him when it had happened. There could be no possibility of going back now. It would take hours, even at light speed, for him to fall to the singularity. The vast black hole was so huge, that the differences in gravity within the hole, the tides, would not be felt until the last seconds of his fall. He would be spared the dreaded “spaghettification” where one was stretched to death for another end.
Falling deeper into the abyss, the increasing gravitation and his relativistic speed combined to warp the appearance of space and time. The event horizon still appeared to be a disc below him taking up about half of his view, as the narrow cone of light able to reach him from behind was concentrated towards the direction of his motion as he approached the speed of light. The light around the edge blazed into the ultra-violet and hard radiation, and would only grow more intense. He rotated away from the death black apparent event horizon, to look back on the light that had fallen into the abyss with him. Behind him, the stars grew strange, warped by the gravitational lens he was within, and red shifted to blackness. The radio transmission from the Chandra quickly grew more rapid, higher pitched, before vanishing in a buzz of static. He was truly on his own, more alone than any man in history.
He had his suit computer compensate for the extreme gravity and relativistic speed, so that he could look on the stars one last time. The twisted reddish smear of light was replaced by the nearby cluster of stars, and the background wall of stars of the galactic core. They began to move, slowly at first, and then racing into streaks of light. As gravity and his velocity increased time for him continued to slow, so all time outside sped up. Thousands of years had passed outside. Maria, he thought, I don’t know where you are now, but I love you.
The outside world dissolved into streaks of light, and then a huge flash, as the galactic core ignited with new star birth and death as the galaxy collided with Andromeda. Billions of years had passed. There was no longer any possibility of discerning what was happening outside. Time had become so twisted there was no relative framework for the computers in his suit to analyze. As he continued to fall, the radiation and light grew ever more intense, more blue-shifted as it concentrated in the lower depths of the brilliantly lit depths of the black hole. Soon, he knew, he would have the answers to the final mysteries that had eluded mankind. The universe blazed with impossible light.
“This court martial will now come back in secession.” declared Captain Simmons. Dr. Marcus had insisted on a court martial on the ship, rather than be transported home for a civil trial. This had seemed to be madness to all involved, as he was clearly guilty of murder. The sentence could only be death, so perhaps he simply wished to get it over with. For a capital crime, a jury was still needed, and his peers, the crew and other scientists, were seated around the circular meeting room that now served as a court of law …
Read the rest in Issue #1, Get it from Amazon, Castalia House or Smashwords.

1 15 16 17 18 19 21