home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!caen!ingles
- From: ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles)
- Newsgroups: alt.atheism
- Subject: Re: Time Travel (did I get into sci.sceptice by accident?)
- Date: 23 Jan 1993 00:56:59 GMT
- Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor
- Lines: 25
- Distribution: world
- Message-ID: <1jq54rINNlt7@srvr1.engin.umich.edu>
- References: <1993Jan19.020659.18623@jcnpc.cmhnet.org> <lYk=FBC@engin.umich.edu> <16B5E11C80.I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: syndicoot.engin.umich.edu
-
- In article <16B5E11C80.I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de> I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau) writes:
- >In article <lYk=FBC@engin.umich.edu>
- >ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles) writes:
- >>
- >> No, under certain assumptions (not pathological assumptions, either!) it
- >>might be possible to go backward in time with out anybody going faster than
- >>light.
- [deletions]
- >Ok, but this does not imply a place out of time. As far as my understanding
- >of Relativity goes it says: no time, no space.
-
- Ah, but it does imply that 1960 A.D. 'still exists' physically in a
- direction we can't normally perceive, and similarly 2010 'already exists'
- in the opposite direction-we-can't-normally-perceive.
- Since all of these 'moments' exist in a four-dimensional continuum, to
- a five-dimensional being they could all be perceived 'at once.' And *it*
- could experience time on an axis orthogonal to all our dimensions.
- Again, I don't say that I think such a being exists. Just that it is not
- logically inconsistent.
-
- Sincerely,
-
- Ray Ingles || The above opinions are probably
- || not those of the University of
- ingles@engin.umich.edu || Michigan. Yet.
-