OT Faster than light was: Hollywood OS wars 3313
Well, you basically have relativity, FTL, causality , pick any two. What you're proposing there is essentially picking the last two and throwing out relativity as we understand it.
I've never liked that idea much. How does "the Universe" know when causality is "about to be violated"? How does "the Universe" act? Why does "the Universe" dislike causality violations so much - can't we sit down with "the Universe" over a pint or two and come to an
I don't ascribe conscious intention to the Universe in that sense, and it's not at *all* clear that Hawking's (unconscious) conjecture is correct, anyway:
On Monday 06 March 2006 21:53, Ray Ingles stood up and spoke the following words to the mbuttes incomp.os.linux.advocacy...: No, but it is hard for us to conceive what exists beyond the lightspeed barrier. We...
Right, but we're just playing word games. Whatever theory replaces GR is going to have to look a heck of a lot like GR in the areas...
Ah, but one thing we *know* is that QM and General Relativity are inconsistent. At least one is wrong, and probably both. The kind of conditions that lead suggest the possibility of time travel (extremely dense, rotating mbuttes, for example) are a case where QM and GR make very different predictions. GR predicts time travel, QM predicts, well, other stuff. At least one is wrong...
Personally, I'm not too offended by the idea of time travel. I think the normal relativity of simultaneity in standard GR hints strongly in that direction.
Read the whole page above for more than you ever wanted to hear about
-- Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"No one - I repeat, no one - is making money on the Web. Yet." - Steve Deyo, 1995
OT Faster than light was: Hollywood OS wars 3314
Linux Advocacy from Newsgroups