魅蓝3S和魅蓝Note3哪个好？魅蓝note3与3S区别对比

Question

In this Kindle version of Skylark Three, which appears to be the original magazine version, there's a little introductory Author's Note that says

Whether or not I consider any theory sound, I did not hesitate to disregard it, if its literal application would have interfered with the logical development of the story. In "The Skylark of Space" Mrs. Garby and I decided, after some discussion, to allow two mathematical impossibilities to stand. One of these immediately became the target of critics from Maine to California and, while no astronomer has as yet called attention to the other, I would not be surprised to hear about it, even at this late date.

It then goes on to say that faster than light travel doesn't count, that's a theory not a proven fact, etc. etc.

What are those two impossibilities?

Answer 1

A couple of "impossibilities" are detailed at the end that relate to the Amazing Stories August, September and October 1930 version.

There's an "Editor's Note" at the end of the version published at Gutenberg by John W. Campbell, Jr. (a fellow writer):

Editor, AMAZING STORIES:

Dr. Smith, in his foreword to "Skylark Three" mentions two errors which he made knowingly. I think I can recognize the astronomical one, at any rate.

Of course, the acceleration of twice 186,000 miles per second, as used in escaping the field of the great "dud" star, as told in "Skylark of Space" was impossible. Nothing could withstand that strain. Further, no gravitational field could be that intense. It would have exactly the effect Dr. Smith describes and allots to the zone of force in "Skylark Three"--it would make a hole in space and pull the hole in after it. Light would be too heavy to leave the planet. The effect on space would be so great as to curve it so violently as to shut it in about it like a blanket. The dud would be both invisible and unapproachable.

The astronomical error? I wonder how Dr. Smith solved the problem of three--or more--bodies? Osnome is a planet of a sun in a group of seventeen suns, is it not? The gravitational field about even two suns is so exceedingly complex that a planet could take up an orbit only such that one sun was at each of the two foci of the ellipse of its orbit, and then only provided the suns were of very nearly the same mass, and stationary, which in turn means they must have no attraction for each other. No, I think his complex system of seventeen suns would not be so good for planets. Celestial Mechanics won't let them stay there. And I really don't see why it was necessary to have so complex a system.

[.......]

John W. Campbell, Jr.

Cambridge, Mass.

^{Credits: E-text prepared by Greg Weeks, L. N. Yaddanapudi, David Dyer-Bennet, and the Project Gutenberg Online Distributed Proofreading Team. Public domain in the USA. Rest of the World status unknown. Fair usage.}

So, to sum up:

• Faster than light travel without faster than light drive (besides, it muddles speed and acceleration).

• A 17+ body-system that was posited as stable without the requisite qualification of appropriate star sizes and orbits.