| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front |
| Wesley: I willan on-win! |
| 2003-09-30 |
| Scrappleface again (2003-09-30) -- Retired General Wesley Clark, who recently said he believes in time travel, today announced that he has won the 2004 election, and re-election in 2008. "I’ve been to the future, and I’m sitting in the big chair in the Oval Office," said the retired four-star general. "In 2013, I signed a $14 million book deal and broke ground on my presidential library." Mr. Clark refused to reveal further details about his future political victories, referring inquiries instead to future White House Press Secretary Clinton. |
| Posted by:Katz |
| #7 I would propose we send Fmr Ambassador Wilson to investigate - you know, his wife works for the CIA, but sshhhhhh -it'll be our secret |
| Posted by: Frank G 2003-9-30 10:42:14 PM |
| #6 Lead investigator: Zefram Cochrane? |
| Posted by: mojo 2003-9-30 5:44:15 PM |
| #5 The Lorentz Transform is a tool for translating the space-time coordinates of events from one inertial frame to another. It does not in any way describe the actual events. Einstein's equations produce a number of interesting results. All mass we know of exists in the v I don't think Clark is actually all that far out on a limb on this one. It's my understanding that NASA is actually devoting some small amount of money to researching various possible techniques. |
| Posted by: Dishman 2003-9-30 4:41:08 PM |
| #4 See: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/ltrans.html |
| Posted by: mojo 2003-9-30 4:19:18 PM |
| #3 Proven impossible? Can you prove a negative now? The Lorentz transformation does seem to indicate that, since distance in space = distance in time (c being constant), FTL travel does involve moving backwards in time. That's one of the "little problems", along with having infinite mass and 0 length... |
| Posted by: mojo 2003-9-30 4:06:09 PM |
| #2 The Wired article has been changed... The part about time travel was an error on the reporter's part. As are as FTL is concerned, neither 'Tachyons' nor 'Warp' have been proven impossible. Relativity doesn't say that FTL is impossible, it simply says that you don't get there by going faster. I helped remedy the reporter's error. Reading the Clark quotes, I couldn't see where time-travel entered into the story. Here was my e-mail: >I'm no fan of Clark's (to put it mildly). >I disagree with your interpretation of his words as > indicating he believes >in the possibility of time travel. I take his > words as meaning he >believes faster-than-light (FTL) is possible. That > is a very different belief. > >Relativity does not preclude FTL per se. It only > states that you cannot >achieve it by simply going faster. If FTL is > possible, it is equally >likely that it could be achieved from 'standing > still'. > >In summary, while I believe that Gen. Clark has at > least his share of >loose screws, I don't think he's quite as crazy as > your article seems to >indicate. I believe that any improvement in the accuracy of reporting is a good thing. |
| Posted by: Dishman 2003-9-30 4:00:32 PM |
| #1 Well General Clark is getting well deserved ridicule for saying he believes in faster than light travel. However, one set of theories using a little used solution to Maxwell's equations, do require photons to go faster than the speed of light. |
| Posted by: mhw 2003-9-30 3:37:22 PM |