Posted on 06/17/2005 12:06:22 PM PDT by LibWhacker
So this is saying that I couldn't go back in time to the night of Bill Clinton's conception and scream "please no, don't do it" at his father?
If TERMINATOR can do it, so I can I!!!
Einstein objected to that based on physics grounds, but Goedel's solution is valid.
"So it may be technically possible, extremely expensive and utterly useless. Sounds like a gov't program."
It would be invaluable in determining cause. Terrorist attacks, crime...
"We could all occupy the same space and never bump into each other, yet still remain well within the bounds of the speed of light."
We're a self-absorbed lot. Out of sight, out of mind.
Ooooh. That'll be good.
There can't be parallel universes or as he said "Thats why they call it a UNI-Verse" :)
Good point, but it would also obliterate privacy. I read a story once, might have been Bradbury. There was a machine that supposedly let you view the past. You could dial up, say Congress on July 4, 1776 and see what happened.
But it turns out that you could also dial up your neighbor's bedroom three picoseconds ago.
SD
"So this is saying that I couldn't go back in time to the night of Bill Clinton's conception and scream "please no, don't do it" at his father?"
It's saying that you could do it, but you'd find that Slick still got pleasured by Monica, while he talked on the phone about the urgent military situation in Bosnia.
I think you know what I was trying to say better than I do...
ping
Time travel is possible, but not probable since you would have to move your mass backwards or forward to the point that the Earth was in during the time period you wish to visit and then back to the point and time of origin.
The Earth and solar system are moving thru space at about 13 miles per second(IIRC) around the hub of the galaxy which is also moving thru space at an even faster speed. The positional calculations alone are a real bear, and when you look at the energy requirements, and that you have to take that energy supply and a computer, with you to get back, it gets unsurmountable real fast.
Now that's funny!
This is a textbook example of what happens when you give immature physicists with no social lives (i) plenty of time on their hands and (ii) access to alcohol.
"This is a textbook example of what happens when you give immature physicists with no social lives (i) plenty of time on their hands and (ii) access to alcohol."
LOL. Sounds like a blast. Sign me up.
No. Although I occasionally make mistakes, there is no grammatical error in that sentence. Was it just too long for you?
There was nothing of substance in that article.
While nothing in it is fundamentally new thinking, what it says is quite substantial. I'd say it is the prevailing view of scientists who think about the meaning of closed, time-like loops which GR does not prohibit.
Such as Randolph Hearst becoming President of the US?
I already read this yesterday. Re-post it for the day before.
I'm going to put in a sell order for Enron at 90 1/8.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.