|
Post by Tripod Bait on Feb 13, 2006 19:12:25 GMT
I can't recall off the top of my head the length of time between the narrator and Ogilvy seeing the Martian's firing cylinders to when the first landed. But in terms of space travel it was a pretty short time - which would mean that the cylinders were traveling at extreme velocities.
I was wondering if someone with a better grasp of physics than I would like to step in and specualte relative speed.
|
|
|
Post by mctoddridesagain on Feb 13, 2006 19:28:33 GMT
Wells doesn't actually say how long it took for the cylinders to travel from Mars to Earth - check the text thoroughly and you'll find much ambiguity (something debated at immense length here and elsewhere; for a flavour of the debates, and issues, check out forums.eveofthewar.com/showthread.php?t=3980 and robk.proboards13.com/index.cgi?board=book&action=display&thread=1105019908 - there is much discussion of the few astronomical clues Wells gives, such as the oppositions, the odd date he does mention, etc. etc.). Basically, it's not possible to be sure whether the Martians took a few weeks or a few months (or even, in the most extreme interpretation, more than a year) to travel, thus it's impossible to say much about the speed of the cylinders.
|
|
|
Post by Tripod Bait on Feb 13, 2006 20:49:10 GMT
Thanks for the links, McTodd. Sorry to tread on old ground. I had looked over some of the older posts to see if it had been covered, and I must've missed the second link you included.
|
|
|
Post by mctoddridesagain on Feb 13, 2006 21:16:03 GMT
No need to worry about treading on old ground - some of it is such ancient ground that only old timers remember that it was ever discussed! No sane person could expect newbies to trawl through hundreds of posts on the offchance their questions may once have been covered deep in the mists of time... Anyway, hope those threads are useful, and they might spark off new insights, so you never know.
|
|
|
Post by EvilNerfherder on Feb 14, 2006 0:34:04 GMT
The times I've read the book, I never got a complete sense of the times involved. You would have thought that would be fairly important detail to convey but Wells smudges it pretty well. Charles has it that Wells was vague on purpose about a lot of details... as the story is only there to carry his themes. I guess that makes sense. For me, it's one of the things that makes the novel such a rich source of discussion topics. As McT says, everyone has their own idea and many a long discussion has been had about it.
|
|
|
Post by Lensman on Feb 14, 2006 0:46:00 GMT
We do have one direct statement of how fast the cylinders travel, in the first chapter: "...drawing nearer every minute by so many thousands of miles, came the Thing they were sending us..."
But since we are are not told the date the cylinders were launched, and we only know the month they landed (June), and there's dispute over how far they traveled, it's impossible to pin down exactly how fast they traveled.
Wells specified the Martians traveled 40 million miles. That would IIRC be accurate for the opposition of 1894, which is probably what Wells took his data from, but the oppositions of 1901 and 1903-- which otherwise fit the clues in the text much better-- were at over 60 million miles. I see someone in the Eve of the War thread referenced above advocates a date of 1907 or later because of the closer opposition at that time, but nothing else in the text supports such a long delay between dates mentioned at the beginning and the date of launch.
Anyway, if we accept the figure "so many thousands of miles" every minute, the minimum speed would be *over* 1000 miles per minute... *over* 60,000 MPH. This supports a relatively quick transit time. I believe Charles has advocated a two week journey. Compare this to the 6-months-to-a-year transit time of projected "man on Mars" missions, and you'll see the Martians were travelling *very* fast! Clearly their space cannon was capable of launching cylinders at *much* greater speeds than is practical for our manned space missions. This is of course an indication that in some respects the Martians' technology is *still* significantly in advance of ours.
|
|
|
Post by EvilNerfherder on Feb 14, 2006 1:01:58 GMT
Yeah.. and then the debates about special couches, liquid suspension or other theoretical means of the Martians withstanding such unbelievably quick travelling speeds start.
|
|
|
Post by Lensman on Feb 14, 2006 1:10:56 GMT
Actually our very, VERY long argument (in the "Uncontrolled Landing?" thread) was over the speed (and therefore force) of the *landing*, and how one might reduce the same.
Remember, it's not the fall that kills you... it's the sudden stop at the end! ;D
|
|
|
Post by Luperis on Feb 14, 2006 3:16:13 GMT
Actually our very, VERY long argument (in the "Uncontrolled Landing?" thread) was over the speed (and therefore force) of the *landing*, and how one might reduce the same. Remember, it's not the fall that kills you... it's the sudden stop at the end! ;D Yeah, the "I'm not afraid of heights... I'm just afraid of what happens after I have just fallen from a great height." principle. ;D Well, it's not exactly the same thing, but you get the idea.
|
|
|
Post by Commandingtripod on Feb 14, 2006 6:34:41 GMT
Actually our very, VERY long argument (in the "Uncontrolled Landing?" thread) was over the speed (and therefore force) of the *landing*, and how one might reduce the same. Remember, it's not the fall that kills you... it's the sudden stop at the end! ;D Yeah, the "I'm not afraid of heights... I'm just afraid of what happens after I have just fallen from a great height." principle. ;D Well, it's not exactly the same thing, but you get the idea. Now that's thinking for you. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Luperis on Feb 14, 2006 22:56:42 GMT
Yeah, the "I'm not afraid of heights... I'm just afraid of what happens after I have just fallen from a great height." principle. ;D Well, it's not exactly the same thing, but you get the idea. Now that's thinking for you. ;D Yeah... insanity does that to you. Well... it did that to me anyway. And I have actually said that many times before in real life. 'Tis one of my little crazy phrazes. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Lensman on Feb 15, 2006 5:28:28 GMT
"I don't suffer from insanity... I enjoy every minute of it!" ;D
|
|
|
Post by Luperis on Feb 15, 2006 20:40:57 GMT
;D ;D ;D
|
|
Chris Oakley
Full Member
More effective than a guard dog! Beware of the Fighting Machine!
Posts: 136
|
Post by Chris Oakley on Feb 17, 2006 18:48:48 GMT
I don't know if this helps but the text reads:
"During the opposition of 1894 a great light was seen on the illuminated part of the disk, first at the Lick Observatory, then by Perrotin of Nice, and then by other observers."
Then it goes on to say:
"The storm burst upon us six years ago now. As Mars approached opposition, Lavelle of Java set the wires of the astronomical exchange palpitating with the amazing intelligence of a huge outbreak of incandescent gas upon the planet."
Now I don't know if by "Storm" he means "Invasion" and he is recounting the story 6 years on or if the first flares happened 6 years before the one he is witnessing.
If it's the latter then that would be about right as travelling to Mars is said to take 5 years.
|
|
|
Post by Lensman on Feb 17, 2006 20:15:56 GMT
Now I don't know if by "Storm" he means "Invasion" and he is recounting the story 6 years on That seems to be the concensus of Wellsian experts. travelling to Mars is said to take 5 years. According to who? Travel time is entirely dependant upon distance and the speed of passage. The speed Wells indicates is quite rapid. IIRC when I ran the numbers some time ago, a 40 million mile distance with a speed of 2000 miles per minute would yield a travel time of 2 weeks, which IIRC is what Charles advocates. Even if you assume the speed was only 1000 miles per minute and the distance over 60 million miles, that's still only about 6 weeks travel time. Also, the fact the Martians launched their invasion shortly before opposition strongly suggests a short travel time. If it took years, it should have been launched *much* earlier, so that the opposition would have coincided with the landing. Remember, the longer the trip takes the more food and other consumables you have to take with you. Surely Wells would have known that; anyone who's read about explorers or long ocean voyages would have known it.
|
|
|
Post by Lensman on Feb 17, 2006 21:54:14 GMT
It may be helpful to re-post an article I wrote-- with some revisions-- which summarizes the facts and speculations. Much of this has already been discussed in this thread, so I apologize for the repetition, but sometimes it's helpful to see everything gathered in one place. .
The Date of the Setting for H.G. Wells' The War of the Worlds
Most of the clues for the date are given in the first chapter.
"And early in the twentieth century came the great disillusionment."
In context, the "disillusionment" refers to mankind fancying itself superior to any life on Mars. Hence this refers to the date of the invasion. The 20th century began in the year 1901, hence the date cannot be before that time.
"During the opposition of 1894 a great light was seen... English readers heard of it first in the issue of Nature dated August 2."
Presumably the "great light" was the casting of the huge space cannon.
Some WotW fans have mistakenly advocated August as the month the Martians launched their cylinders because of this reference. However, as we shall shortly see, the opposition of 1894 was *not* when the invasion was launched.
"Peculiar markings, as yet unexplained, were seen... during the next two oppositions. [paragraph] The storm burst upon us six years ago now. As Mars approached opposition..."
The "six years ago" is confusing until we realize (upon reading the final chapter) that the Narrator is recording this story six years after the events. So we can ignore that remark. The pertinent data here is that the events of the story begin no earlier than the third opposition following 1894. Consulting the historic records for Mars oppositions:
1894 October 20......22:16 1896 December 11...05:42 1899 January 18......23:32 1901 February 22 ....06:11 1903 March 29.........07:31 1905 May 08...........20:07 1907 July 06...........15:28
Presuming the opposition referred to is the third following 1894, and not a later one, the year of the beginning of The War of the Worlds is 1901. And indeed this is the best year from an esthetic point of view to present a story of world-changing events. Arthur C. Clarke set "2001: A Space Odyssey" in the first year of a new millennium, and I believe Wells set his story in the first year of a new century.
"...a huge outbreak of incandescent gas... had occurred towards midnight of the twelfth..."
This is of absolutely no help, as it does not specify a month. Some readers have conflated this with the "August" referred to above... which again referred to an earlier opposition and thus has nothing to do with the date in question.
"Forty millions of miles it [Mars] was from us--more than forty millions of miles of void."
Now this presents a problem when trying to reconcile it with the historical data. The opposition of 1896 was indeed the minimum distance of about 40 million miles, but the oppositions of 1901 and 1903 were at over 60 million. Someone on the "Eve of the War" forum advocated a date of 1907 because that was also a distance of around 40 million miles. My guess is that Wells took the data from the 1896 opposition and didn't realize that other oppositions might be farther away.
"...flying swiftly and steadily towards me across that incredible distance, drawing nearer every minute by so many thousands of miles, came the Thing they were sending us..."
This addresses the question of how long it took the Martians to travel to earth. Of course, we don't have any idea of just how *many* thousands of miles per minute they were traveling. Let's assume a reasonable minimum: 1000 miles per minute. This yields 40,000,000 / 1000 = 40,000 minutes of travel time, or about 27.8 days. Of course, they may have been coming somewhat faster. I believe Charles has stated it took them about 2 weeks to arrive. I'm not sure what he's basing that on, but if we assume 2000 miles per minute then indeed we get two weeks.
If the opposition instead was at a distance of about 60 million miles, then these times must be increased by about 50%, yielding about three to six weeks.
Some readers have suggested that altho the Martians launched their invasion during 1901 it did not arrive until the next year (presumably because current NASA plans to send a maned flight to Mars would require a trip of 6-12 months). But if what the Narrator says is even remotely close to the truth then this is impossible, and not just because of the rapid speed indicated. Keep in mind that for the shortest distance traveled (and hence the quickest journey), the opposition should coincide with the *landing*, not the *launching* of a spacecraft. The fact the Martians launched their invasion shortly before opposition strongly indicates a short travel time. Otherwise we have to assume it was mere coincidence.
"The night was warm... [paragraph] That night another invisible missile started on its way to the earth from Mars, just a second or so under twenty-four hours after the first one."
Clearly this takes place during the same period leading up to the opposition. Presumably the Martians' space cannon is buried in the ground, as was Verne's space cannon in From the Earth to the Moon. Since the cannon cannot be moved, the Martians must fire it at the instant it's aimed in precisely the right direction, which would happen only once each Martian day. So the cylinders were launched (and presumably arrive) almost exactly one day apart.
The fact that the night was "warm" is not reconcilable with the historical date of the 1901 opposition. A late February night in England is not going to be "warm". In fact, some have given this as a reason to suggest the opposition in question was the next one, in 1903. That only changes the time of year by a month, but some have suggested that it's at least possible to have a warm night on March 29. That's a reasonable argument, but it fails to explain the discrepancy between the opposition distance-- 40 million miles as Wells says versus over 60 million miles as the historical data shows.
Instead, it seems likely that Wells ignored the actual historical date when writing the novel. Authors do this quite commonly. In fact, authors have a saying: "Never let the facts stand in the way of a good story." Trying to use historic data to fix the date of a fictional story is rarely successful. See, for instance, The Annotated Sherlock Holmes for various articles by the Baker Street Irregulars showing the difficulty of finding the "real" date of various Sherlock Holmes stories from dates and descriptions given in the stories. Philip Jose Farmer had similar problems in trying to fix the "real" dates of the Doc Savage stories in his Doc Savage: His Apocalyptic Life.
Later in WotW, the month of the invasion is given as June (chapters I-17 and II-3 both specify "June" without giving any more specific date). If we ignore the historical data indicating the 1901 opposition happened during February, and assume it happened in June-- the time of the invasion-- then we can reconcile the "warm" night with events later in the novel.
In this case, the observation in question-- which happened "as Mars approached opposition"-- was likely no more than six weeks before the cylinders started landing, and quite possibly a lot less. If indeed it took only two to six weeks for the Martians to travel to earth, then the launch of their capsules happened somewhere between mid-April and early June. This is entirely reconcilable with a warm night in southern England.
The truth is that no historic date matches well with the facts given in WotW. In my opinion the strongest argument for a 1901 date is the fact that the narrator specifically mentions the opposition of 1894, then mentions the next two oppositions (which historically happened in 1896 and 1899), and then goes on to describe the invasion. This suggests to me that the opposition was the one right after 1899, which would have been 1901. Admittedly this is a weak argument-- as they say, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"-- but since *no* date fits all the historical facts, it seems best to pick the one that the greatest number of clues point to.
However, there remain a number of WotW fans who prefer a 1903 date because it fits better with the "warm night" description.
|
|
|
Post by mctoddridesagain on Feb 17, 2006 22:23:23 GMT
Hee hee, I think I may be one of those Lensy refers to as a '1903 man', especially regarding the comment about warm nights (or the lack thereof) in late February!
However, I concur entirely with Lensman that it is impossible to fit the dates precisely - it is a work of fiction, after all, and the fact that it meshes as well as it does is amazing.
I'm as happy with 1901 as 1903, as both are equally dubious if we stick rigorously to the facts, so at this point, I would say that aesthetic considerations come into play.
Excellent and admirably concise distillation of the arguments, by the way, Lensman.
|
|
Chris Oakley
Full Member
More effective than a guard dog! Beware of the Fighting Machine!
Posts: 136
|
Post by Chris Oakley on Feb 17, 2006 23:27:51 GMT
Now I don't know if by "Storm" he means "Invasion" and he is recounting the story 6 years on That seems to be the concensus of Wellsian experts. travelling to Mars is said to take 5 years. According to who? Travel time is entirely dependant upon distance and the speed of passage. The speed Wells indicates is quite rapid. IIRC when I ran the numbers some time ago, a 40 million mile distance with a speed of 2000 miles per minute would yield a travel time of 2 weeks, which IIRC is what Charles advocates. Even if you assume the speed was only 1000 miles per minute and the distance over 60 million miles, that's still only about 6 weeks travel time. Also, the fact the Martians launched their invasion shortly before opposition strongly suggests a short travel time. If it took years, it should have been launched *much* earlier, so that the opposition would have coincided with the landing. Remember, the longer the trip takes the more food and other consumables you have to take with you. Surely Wells would have known that; anyone who's read about explorers or long ocean voyages would have known it. Fair point, I stand corrected. You read that many differing articles you never know which one to believe.
|
|
|
Post by Lensman on Feb 18, 2006 2:39:09 GMT
Excellent and admirably concise distillation of the arguments, by the way, Lensman. Thank you! And yes, your argument in favor of the 1903 date did cause me to make substantial revisions since the last time I posted this summary. You're not the only one who favors the 1903 date, but you've given a solid argument in support of that position.
|
|
|
Post by Topaz on Jul 22, 2006 4:02:50 GMT
Lensman, that's a great analysis. Nicely done.
If I may correct one error, however, the Martian cylinders (or any vehicle on a ballistic trajectory between Mars and Earth) would travel much, much farther than 40 million miles if that is the distance between the planets at the time of launch.
The distance Wells is quoting is the straight line distance between the worlds. But Mars is moving and Earth is moving, and both at a mighty good clip around the sun. The Martians would've use the gun to actually slow the velocity of the cylinders relative to Mars (by 60,000mph or whatever other number we can infer) and fall in an elliptical orbit in towards Earth, intersecting with our world after a substantial fraction of an orbit around the sun. As such, their travel distance could be several times the 40 million mile straight-line interplanetary distance.
|
|