Re: Time machine

Robert Wilson sekalge:
>Relative to what?
Everything? The rest of the universe? Can there be no absolute motion?
(Well, if it isn't relative motion as well, it's immeasurable to us.)
Earth moves relative to the sun; the sun moves relative to other stars in
this galaxy; this galaxy moves relative to other galaxies.

Actually, our little planet might not move at all. Everything could be
arrayed in hideously complex orbits around us.

But Nik Taylor's theory, that the time machine would attach itself to the
prevalent gravity source, makes sense. I would not be surprised if it
worked, and I would not be surprised if it did not. I'm not surprised
often. That makes for a rather boring life.

John Cowan sekalge:
>A time travel machine *is* a spacecraft, and a faster-than-light one
>at that: time travel and FTL are mathematically equivalent.
Faster-than-light travel has time travel as a side effect, at least.
However, manipulation of gravity has the same effect.

Laimes,
Wright.