The speed of gravity

Aloysius: glad you finally made it back here (where've you been?). Chime in any time.

Plato:

In my original setup, I had B trailing A. That is, let's say A and B are orbiting counterclockwise. Then the angle of A minus the angle of B gives a positive number less than 180 degrees.

Everybody:

I've recently had a revelation I'd like to share. Well, actually it's more like a confession:

The reasoning in my little thought experiment was flawed after all. But not in the way Plato thought. I've been trying to come up with a reasonable reply to the last criticism, and then it hit me.

Remember I've mentioned how A and B aren't exactly stationary with respect to each other? In the sense that if we take A as the reference point, then both N and B will seem to orbit it? Well, that's actually the solution!!! The solution is true in general, but I'll present a simplified case.

Assume that A, B, and N are equidistant from each other (this is the simplification). Then, if we take A as the frame of reference, N and B will appear to orbit it along a common circular trajectory in the same direction! Note that N will be trailing B. Now, as before, N emits a flash. Because it is equidistant to A and B, A will receive the flash first (since B is running away from N). The communication from A to B vs. from B to A takes the same amount of time, so B will receive A's flash before A receives B's (since A received N's flash first and emitted its own signal first). Then, B will flash back to N, and since N is running into the wavefront, the communication from B to N is again faster than from A to N. So there we go: two positive boosts insure that N sees B's response first.

In fact, no Lorentz boosts are needed at all to see that this system is perfectly symmetric. I just used Newtonian space and radially propagating circular wavefronts in the orbital plane, traveling all at the same velocity (c).

So, neither N, A, or B is a preferred frame of reference. Until, of course, we take a look at the gravitational gradient...

So, no need to waste money on space missions after all!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

However, even though the hopes of directly detecting an absolute framework have been dashed for the moment, I'm not giving up yet...

--------------------------------------------

Plato:

With respect to the other points in your last message:

Here's my (of course, biased

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

) view of Lorentz transformations. They do not apply to light since it travels within an absolute framework at constant speed. So, when you pop in c, c pops back out -- no surprise there. What the Lorentz transforms are needed for is to make any inertial observer's measurement of c consistent with any other's. The inertial observers travel within the absolute framework. But, they have no way of detecting the framework (especially since my thought experiment died, God rest its soul

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

) -- because they are themselves governed by fields that propagate at c, and must utilize those fields whenever they make measurements. (Actually, I think this is just the context in which Lorentz derived his transformations to begin with.)

Who said the universe is a hypersphere? I thought the geometry was still a point of debate... Actually, of late it seems the universe is likely to rather be a hyperhyperbolicparaboloid. (Cool word, eh?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

)

Well, anyway. Your point about the simultaneous and distinct realities for each observer (as you seemed to imply in the train/station reference) is just astonishing. Do you really think that for the train the lightfront exists in one place, and for the ground it simultaneously exists in another place?! This smells like multiple universes all over again, only this time you've got them all crammed into one. Of course I have no way of knowing you are not actually right, but I think it's more proper to interpret the lightfront as being the only copy of itself. Though of course this *would* lead to the conclusion that as far as the light is concerned there's only one true frame of reference -- the same one in which the light is traveling. So, the transforms are applied to the *observers* to make their measurements equivalent to each other in accordance with this absolute frame of reference hypothesis. You don't apply the transforms to light -- since it's the benchmark against which motion is measured for the transforms in the first place.

So, actually my position with respect to the absolute framework still stands for the multiple reasons mentioned before. It is my opinion that all the relativistic effects are only a result of this underlying framework -- and do not exist in defiance of it but rather in support of it. Though, again, I may be wrong (though all the indirect evidence for unification and common source is just too compelling...)

--------------------------------------------

And now, for the 'here we go again' section. You didn't think you'd be off that easy, did you

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I think I just came up with yet another devious plan to obtain the absolute reference frame -- the cosmic microwave background. Since the temperature is supposed to be roughly uniform from all directions, would it not mean that for an object perfectly stationary in an absolute sense the background photons from any direction will have the same frequency? But then if so, as soon as you start moving in any direction, the microwave background will Doppler-shift to blue at your front and red at your rear. Is that not so? Now, I know COBE mapped the background -- does anybody know if COBE actually looked at a range of microwave frequencies, and if so whether there was more blue, say, in one hemisphere, and more red on the other?



------------------
I am; therefore I think.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Boris,

you must think I'm crazy but I'm actually going to save your first experiment !

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

If light would behave the way you describe it, namely travel in an absolute frame then it still stands because N, who is making the actual mesuring of the times between A-pulse and B-pulse, still get's B first. It makes no difference if you are looking at the experiment from A or B, the end result stays the same so light travels at a speed c in the N frame and not in the A or B frame !

Unfortunately similar experiments, and I have only mentioned Michelson and Morley but there are several others, seem to show light doesn't prefer any frame of reference. Besides, do you realise that there won't even be any doppler shift being measured by A or B or N in the lightpulse ! That is because there is no relative motion between those to. All that you are doing is looking at the events in rotating frames but you might as well fix your axes on the three bodies and then everything stands still. Face it, there is no absolute frame of reference. You can't accept Lorentz formula's and try to expain everyting according to the absolute frame, that is pure nonsense I'm afraid.
Just listen to what you are saying when you state that the lorentz equations don't hold for light, as if it's no part of our universe, as if it is something magical that obeys it own Newtonian laws, that simply doesn't make sense !

Look, if there is an absolute frame of reference timedelation and length contraction is simply not possible ! Because everyting would have it's 'true' length according to this absolute frame and everything would have it's 'true' duration. Do you realise that something like electron-spin would even be impossible because an electron would have only spin in regard to this absolute frame, if we would be spinning at the same angular velocity as the electron than we would mesure no spin at all and the electron would in effect become a boson ! Also it would be meaningless to say the rotational impluse of the electron is 1/2h because that is only in respect to this absolute frame, any other frame would give me a different value of the rotational impulse moment.
The reson why classical (non-relativistic) quantum mechanics doesn't incorporate a spin is precisely because of the above reasons. Once Dirac made the equations consitent with special relativity, electron spin poped into the picture as a fundamental property of matter. An other thing he predicted in doing that was the existence of antimatter, that is just an other thing that can't exist in a Newtonian universe !

About the doppler shift of the cosmic background, I don't really see how that is going to prove your point. You are trying to slow light down in one direction and speed it up at another but that is not what doppler shift is about. Dopplershift only happens if a light SOURCE has a relative velocity in respect to an observer, it makes no statements about the speed of light.

Aloysius,
what do you have to say about this ? Didn't you say you were a physicist as well ?

------------------
we are midgets standing on the backs of giants,
Plato

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I graduated in physics some thirty years ago, and have been an engineer ever since. So I'm impure and unclean, I'm afraid. But probably a likely guy to build a Woodward Drive

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Re. spin, and an epistemological note: I never bought the fact that spin was in fact "spin" - as in twirling around. It's just a "characteristic parameter" in my book - much the same as strangeness, charm, beauty and all that good stuff. I leave what it actually means to others.

Therefore, to state that spinning around an electron would change the measured value of its spin has a couple of problems, as I see it:

1. I don't think it's spinning!
2. The spin is (as you point out) quantised. It's a "thou shalt not alter" kind of value - um, elementary, yeah, that's the ticket

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.
Sooooo...that's a bit like lightspeed, isn't it? So even if Mach Rules, I doubt that the measured spin would alter.

Speaking of dear Dr. Mach (yes, 19th century, to answer an earlier query), I believe you mentioned that you found Woodward's mathematics "simple" and "cheap science".
Well, that may well be. But what in particular causes your nose to wrinkle about it, I'm curious to know?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Aloysius,

Trust me

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

spin does mean to spin around, you can calculate it gives way to the magnetic dipole moment of the electron, if it wouldn't spin, there would be no dipole moment. The reason why we can't alter this spin by spinning ourselves is because for one quantum uncertainty always leaves a residue spin left and the reason why every observer finds 1/2h as spinmoment is because there is no preferential frame as to which it would be calculated, any frame is good enough.

As to Woodward's math, I'm afraid I gave the wrong impression. I have been searching the net for other peoples comments on his views and it seems he really is up to something. I guess my first reaction was one of misinterpretation because I couldn't figure out where the initial mass fluctuation came from. For the moment I believe he said that it was due to an oscillating internal energy, right ?

This was the first time I really got a through explanation of how inertial forces suddenly appear. I never realized they were so exotic. But then again, the universe never seems to run out of surprises for us, keeps things interesting.

Besides Aloysius, I'm not pure anymore either, I'm a darn computer programmer for christ sake ! I mean, how low can you fall ? At least you are still indirectly involved with physics ! (ssssiiiigh)

------------------
we are midgets standing on the backs of giants,
Plato



[This message has been edited by Plato (edited June 10, 1999).]

 

Now, I do have some critique about the way he (Woodward) discards the quantum vacuum energy as being insignificant. There are a bit to many experimental evidences like Lambshift and Casimir forces who can only be explained if one assumes the vacuum does as an infinite amount of energy available.

Aloysius, are you having plans to build such a Woodward Drive ? Did you know Woodward was also trying to make negative mass with his device ? This would, combined with the modified Alcubierre engine of Van Den Broeck, put the stars in our reach...

It seems, by the way, that our webmaster David Watanabe has also stumbled on this new warpdrive... Right on Dave !

------------------
we are midgets standing on the backs of giants,
Plato



[This message has been edited by Plato (edited June 10, 1999).]

 

Plato:

I'm relieved that you haven't - immediately at least - poked a hole in Woodward's maths

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Yup, I'm almost done building my device, but having just changed jobs - I too do only programming these days - I've had no time to begin testing. Perhaps after the NCTA show...

Woodward doesn't actually want to generate negative mass. We've discussed this quite a bit. Even if it were possible, I don't think it's the kind of experiment you'd want to do on the planet. I'm not joking actually - even if there's a vanishingly small chance of creating some wormhole, doing it in the atmosphere of the planet you live in is like shitting on your own doorstep. As he says in one of his papers "watch out for the sucking sound"

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

If such an orifice were to be created - with no guarantee that it could be closed again, this being a somewhat new experience! - then the other end has a probability close to certainty of lying in a vacuum. Good bye atmosphere!

However, negative mass is cool stuff for van den Broek devices, and in general engineering the shape of spacetime - including pinning open the throats of wormholes.

It turns out that very substantial translational forces can theoretically be evinced from a Woodward Drive without ever having mass excursions anywhere near to negative, even momentarily. And that's the case with all the experiments aimed to reproduce the effect that I know of currently being in progress.

Of course, this could all turn out to be Hooey. There are no True Believers here; just curious and skilled people who have some idea what they're doing. Oh, and some significant government-funded work too.


As regards spin; the creation of a magnetic dipole moment could just be another elementary property. It may lie beyond Maxwell, although I guess you'll counter with Sir William of Occam's sharp thingie. Hey Ho!

 

Aloysius,

well if Woodward really is proven to be right then we are living in exiting times indeed ! I always thought that the stars where going to stay unreachable certainly in my lifetime and a long time after that but here we are actually talking about an experimental way of creating momentarely negative mass ! It's just to good to be true, there will perhaps lie a whole lot of difficulties on the way to actually create a wormhole or a van den Broek device...

Anyway I wish you all the luck with your experiment and do let us know how it turned out. Could you perhaps tell us how your setup is going to be ?

About spinning, if you think that magnetic dipole moment is just a mysterious property of an electron than you must think that the same thing goes for the entire atom because why should it fly around the nucleus ? You are very right to mention dear old William there, he usually makes life a whole lot simpler and less mysterious.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

------------------
we are midgets standing on the backs of giants,
Plato

 

Whoa, I'm gone a couple of days and all hell breaks loose!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

All right, I'm gonna try and catch up here...

----------------------------------------
Concerning my 'thought experiment'
----------------------------------------
Yes, indeed I'm claiming that N will get the signal from B before A. And it's not inconsistent with relativity, un contraire. The entire discipline is founded on the assumption that light travels at constant speed and therefore is the only reliable measuring stick that doesn't change its properties across frames of reference. Everything else changes: time flow, length, inertial mass -- but light speed is allways the same. Redshift indeed occurs for moving bodies upon emission, but gets exactly cancelled out upon reception in co-moving frames. For example, if B trails A (in an absolute sense, for simplicity) and emits a pulse, then the pulse will be Doppler-compressed at the emitter, and Doppler-expanded at the receiver. Thus, no overall frequency change is observed. And in my case, the bodies _are_ rotating. There's no way to view them as static. Contraction can still occur despite absolute reference frame -- because length is measured by radar ranging (pick up an SR book to see this). Light does all the work of establishing the Lorentz transforms; the only necessary assumptions are that lightspeed is constant within the absolute reference frame -- and that all experimental setups are also subject to lightspeed at the fundamental level.

------------------------------------------
Concerning quantum mechanics
------------------------------------------
I don't believe in 'spin' either. In fact, electrons aren't even orbiting the atoms: they are standing waves! Plato, I'm surprised you take this more primitive orbital interpretation over the more modern statistical one. In fact, 'spin' does not make sense (as defined in our intuitive 3D terms) because then there's no way you can have a 'counterspin'. Obviously, you'd have to use more dimensions than just 3 -- at which point talking about 'spin' is tantamount to assigning a specific conceptual meaning to an arbitrary mathematical construct. Plato, you yourself have gone over the dangers of assigning meaning to math -- especially since there are ample reasons to suspect that our theories are incomplete.

-------------------------------------------
Woodward's impulse engine
-------------------------------------------
My big-time problem with the whole thing is that it was derived from Mach's principle. I.e.: physical effects propagating _backward in time_????????? I don't care how it makes the math work, it's just nonsensical. There's *got* to be a better formulation for inertia. Then, as Plato rightly noticed, Woodward does slight quantum vacuum. Then, I don't know how robust is his 'specialization' to the particle's reference frame. I.e. he discards the Lorentz factor, for the moving object, but doesn't add that factor to the 'force field' that is supposed to generate inertia. Then, I'm not sure about 'instantaneous' compliance with Lorentz invariance for accelerating objects; as far as I'm aware relativity doesn't deal with accelerating objects, period -- instantaneously or not (at least as far as transformation-invariance is concerned). But then, what do I know

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

So, Aloysius, I join Plato in wishing you luck -- whatever the final outcome.

-------------------------------------------
More plugs for absolute framework

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

-------------------------------------------
The doppler shift of cosmic background: I'm not speeding up or slowing down light. Think of it as moving through a room filled with white noise. If you stand still, the noise is the same in all directions. However, if you move rapidly, the noise will be more high-pitched in the forward direction and lower-pitched in retrograde direction. Note that the speed of sound in the air does not change as you move. Now, substitute the 'air' with 'ether' and the speed of sound with lightspeed...

Plato: if there's no absolute framework, then you could perhaps explain how a 'spinning' electron could generate a dipole moment?! I.e., what is it spinning in relation to, exactly? Would it be true that in a perfectly empty universe (except for one electron present), an electron would never possess a dipole moment?!! Ever paused to think about what _you_ are saying?

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

[This message has been edited by Boris (edited June 13, 1999).]

 

------------------------------------------
Concerning quantum mechanics
------------------------------------------

Guilty as charged !
I shoudn't have used these 'classical' terms as orbit and rotating around an axis. What I wanted to do is make the 'spin' concept just a little bit more familiar by relating it on just classical turning. But ok lets look at the wavefunction that represents the electron, we have a standing wave. To have that there must be some statistical moving around of a chargedensity. Twist it any way you want there HAS to be a moving charge in order to have a magnetic dipole moment.
Now counterspin is only a meaningfull properties of a bound electron, this means that it always has a spin orientation in relation to a nucleus or an other electron in it's 'orbital'.

-------------------------------------------
More plugs for absolute framework
-------------------------------------------

An electron is always spinning in relation to any observer, doesn't this sound familiar to you ? Like in light always has velocity c in relation to any observer ?

Tell me, what does it take to convince you that it is impossible to merge lorentz equations with the notion of an absolute framework ?

What a second, let's swich roles here. Give me a good reason why I should believe there is an absolute framework. I don't want an other example or experiment, I want your deepest motivations...

------------------
we are midgets standing on the backs of giants,
Plato

 

Sorry I've been out of touch for a while. But guess what... I'm baaa-aack! (insert evil laughter here)

<hr>

Plato:

The only thing that would convince me that Lorentz transforms are impossible within an absolute framework is a mathematical proof. I fact, I am willing to bet a lot of money that such a proof had never existed, nor will ever exist. It's rather like trying to prove the (in)existence of God.

I've been over my motivations for this a number of times. Here we go again.

Basically, it's the grand synthesis and the ultimate reduction that catch my imagination. If everything -- including space, time, fields, quanta, and even the speed of light -- could be reduced to just a single entity, that would be the ultimate scientific achievement of our time. You might say string theory does that, but then I'd ask what gives rise to the strings and all the dimensions within which they vibrate. You see, as long as space just is assumed to be there, I'm not satisfied. I want to explain space itself, and time itself -- not just the matter/energy that inhabits them.

I want to know what gives rise to the physical constants, like permittivity, or G, or h_bar. I want to know what gives rise to the three dimensions. I want to know wherefore lightspeed -- and why precisely the speed we measure. I want to know _why_ a moving charge creates a magnetic field, not just how.

The fundamental constants, and the physical laws, are the same regardless of inertial observer. I want to know why. I want to know what makes sure that relativity stands.

I want the ultimate coordinate system and the ultimate math that will apply to absolutely all areas of science at the most fundamental level, and will never have a singularity, or a discontinuity, or asymptotic behavior anywhere within its framework. I want to know exactly what happens inside a quark, and what happens inside a singularity, and what happens inside a photon, and what makes them all ultimately one and the same thing. I want to be able to calculate with arbitrary precision the behavior of physical systems over any spacial or time scales. Ultimately, I want to know what gave rise to the Big Bang.

Are these questions enough to make you wonder, Plato? They certainly are for me...

<hr>

Concerning the electron-spin...
Imagine an electron moving inertially in a perfectly empty universe. Now imagine a co-moving observer. The electron is perfectly stationary with respect to the observer -- and therefore cannot have a magnetic dipole! Hence, it's not spinning. Quantum-mechanically, this is, of course, not allowed -- for if we know exactly how the electron is moving, it becomes uniformly spread over the entire universe and therefore basically ceases to exist! So the only reason the electrons are always spinning is because they are always moving with respect to us -- otherwise, we simply don't see them. (Though, unlike Heisenberg, I think that they exist even though we can't observe them. Could be the source of 'virtual particles'...) But then here's the question: if we know an electron's trajectory 100%, and its position is 100% undefined, then if we introduce a positive charge along a different trajectory into the empty universe, the charge will not accelerate at all!! (since the negative charge is equally spread throughout the universe). Does that now mean that charge, as well as magnetism, is a property of bodies whose momentum is not known 100%? But now we are faced with this conundrum of knowledge: how does 'knowing something' alter the nature of reality -- like making charge disappear?!

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

[This message has been edited by Boris (edited June 24, 1999).]

 

As far as I know, and which makes sense to me, is that a particle in a completely empty universe becomes very peculiar when asked to spin. Because there's nothing to spin relative to. I think this central insight is what got Mach started off down his road.

So if "spinning" and "not spinning" become identical for such a situation, what does this say about inertia? It appears to point to the requirement that "The Fixed Stars" be present, in order for inertia to exist at all!

 

I think along the same lines here. First of all is it possible to have a 'universe' with a single electron.
May be I should give a definition here of universe : the timespace continuum where everything happens in so I'm only looking at a finite set of dimensions be it four, be it ten or eleven. In order to have an electron there must be a Dirac field present with one quantum (the electron) but if it appears that this field would have to be connected with all other fields and ultimatly of the amount of dimensions of space itself thus giving rise to the universe as we know it like a nescessety.

About all the questions that you rise, Boris as far as I have read about string theory (and that is not that much I'm afraid) they do show that the fundamentel constants like h, e and c are ultimatly connected or do I have this wrong ?
Well anyway any good theory of everything should do just such a thing let it all boil down to just one constant.
Now imagine a Hilbert space (this means a space with infinite dimensions) with a scalar field (of course) that fills the space. This field gives rise to universes (see above definition), each with a different fundamental constant. Now I imagine that only a specific set of choises who will give rise to universes with life and conscience in it. Thus comes in the weak antropological principle : our universe is the way it is because we are here to ask the question. I know, I know, I'm going against my own words that we have to stick to observables but maybe there will be a way to verify the existence of other universes. Jesus, I almost feel like those guys who thought there were other worlds around the pinholes in the sky.

Ok, back to the real world.
Boris,

you would like a mathematical treatment that an absolute frame is incompatible with lorentz' equations. Ok, we can set some requirements that will have to be in it.
First you will have to define the space you are going to use. Second you need to define a frame of reference which one could call absolute. This could be the start of a proof ad absurdum.
To tell you the truth I don't know if such a proof has already been made but I imagine it would. I'll poke around a bit, maybe I find something.

------------------
we are midgets standing on the backs of giants,
Plato

 

Back to the Topic!!! -

You'll find here
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/grav_speed.html

that Steve Carlip disagrees with Tom van Flandern. Tom indicated this to me in email recently, and although he maintains a healthy respect for Carlip, still disagrees - as you've already read.

Sounds like Tom's wrong. Anyone agree?

 

Ok, I guess we can call him Tom from now on (I did feel V.F. was a bit strange)...

But didn't Tom mention on his website that the only reason the GR formulas work out is because a 'retarted' fix was applied to them behind the curtains? Though the pulsar evidence seems formidable. However, couldn't something other than gravity cause an orbit to decay? E.g. tidal energy transfer?

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

 

Man, my SR is rusty. I tried to derive the traveller time for an accelerating spaceship this weekend, and got hopelessly lost in tanh()'s, gamma's and incorrect frames of reference! Never mind my GR (I think I actually understood Christofel-Riemann tensors once, but that isn't the case right now).

Anyway, from my desparate plumbing into SR theory this weekend, I came across something about the Schwarzchild metric that shows that nothing is done "behind the curtains". GR predicts **almost** the same result as Newton I think, and it pops out naturally. I think Carlip mentions a "linear extrapolation of retarded position". Sadly, I have no link to give you.

 

Just new to the net, I surfed and found your web site. How fast does gravity go? Well, we will have an answer some time in the future. I discovered in 1967, the monopole high-voltage generator as used by these UFO's for propulsion and gravity control. Some time in the future we will be using them for propulsion, rather than rockets, in our space ships,although the Nasa rocket-propulsion specialists told me that they were "Not interested, thank you!" and
hate it. I myself think that gravity goes faster than light. Reason? If you send a radio-signal to a metal container, with a receiver in it, it does not pick up the signal. The light speed does not penetrate metal. But gravity does! I am assembling a monopole shortly, and will try it out on a completely shielded receiver. There is also a puzzle. In the big Pyramid, the "Queens grave" contained a battery to contact other planets. Maybe there is a secondary speed to a light or radio signals. And it could quite well be 10 tot the 10th power in km/sec.

 

Isn't this ajustment of retarded force just what Woodward claimed to be the effect of gravit-magnetism ?
Steve Carlip doesn't use the term but the whole electromagnetic gravitation treatment is just a reinterpretation of the same equations of GR. This strongly suggests that the three possible origens for inertial forces are down to two, leaving quantum fluctuations and the invert-time gravity waves theorie of Feynmann and Wheeler...

To mister Vliegendeschotel : I think you missed from topic, the 'vliegende schotels' are discussed in the ufo-thread. By the way, I take it you never heard of the cage of Faraday ?

------------------
we are midgets standing on the backs of giants,
Plato

 

Herr Fliegende DinksBumps:
Wonderful that you discovered a monopole high voltage generator in 1967. I hope that you and the generator are very happy together. If you feel like it, post the engineering plans here and we can discuss them. There are enough qualified people here to help you. You probably do need help.

Plato:
Yes, I think it is right...it's down to two.
I don't know if you realise it, but the waves can be advanced or retarded. Theory doesn't differentiate between the two possibilities. I think, aesthetically - and otherwise - coming and going from the future is better than emitting to the past and interfering with a normal wave back from the past. You agree?

 

Time travel! Nnnnoooooooooo..........

I hate time travel. I know it's irrational, but I hate it, I hate it, I hate it.

Just thought I'd throw a tantrum this once; takes all that stress off, you know.

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

 

Relax Boris,

Let them stupid waves travel back and forward in time, that doesn't mean actual particles can do the same. Maybe timetravel is only allowed for bosons while the fermions have to follow the normal laws of causality. I don't know, I'm just mumbling.

Anyway I must agree with Aloysius on this, symmetrical emission of waves in time is much more aesthetical then those chaotic vacuum fluctuations...


------------------
we are midgets standing on the backs of giants,
Plato



[This message has been edited by Plato (edited June 28, 1999).]