From: jsbell@acs.ucalgary.ca (Joshua Bell)
Subject: Re: So, is it over?
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 92 18:14:44 GMT
Organization: The University of Calgary, Alberta

In article <1992Dec24.142848.6782@shearson.com> scarrobi@shearson.com writes:
> 
>thi is a ridiculous statement. if you destroy the key to time thats it u are nonexistant (in the future). you would have no choice but to stay in that time period 

*FLAME ON*

It may be ridiculous, but at least I hit return before the end of
the screen, and capitalized, punctuated and used real words
instead of sloppy abbreviations. (Sorry, this guy gets to me. He
said he wrote like this because he is a programmer and doesn't
have time to be coherent. Please beware of any programs he
writes. :)

Appologies to all who had to put up with that. :)

*FLAME OFF*

>and be your own grandfather and start the cycle over. but once you destroy 
>your own present time is changed unless u do something to right it. but as 
>for self repairing thats nonsense. too much movies and books. 

1) There is no known way for time travel to operate. Even the
most promising theories (like using wormholes, cosmic strings)
have these gaping holes in them. Eg, "We can use wormholes to
time travel, but we need to prop them open with some material
that disobeys all known physical laws."

2) Pern _is_ a book.

3) Every fictional time travel system operates differently.

4) There is no absolute 'law of time travel'. While fading out in
"Back to the Future" may be ridiculous, its no more ridiculous
than riding telepathic dragons that evolved hyperspace travel to
avoid a threat from space.


>if this sounds like a
>flame well it sort of is. cause to talk time off the cuff like that is absurd.

No, calling yourself an expert on how time travel really works is
absurd. I certainly don't claim to do that, just offered one of
the more interesting theories thats been bandied about. And
instead of flaming a theory as wrongwrongwrong, I would attempt
to show why it is infeasable, or offer a better theory in
contrast. You have done neither.

>time is fragile. and paradoxes are dangerous. 

Paradoxes don't happen on Pern, it seems. Therefore, we should
assume there's a reason they don't.

>this all has to be thought out well.

Append: "And I'm the only one allowed to think it out." to that.

>please please, when discussing time travel dont speak in generalities. whenever
>i see a time movie i think very hard about what is happeneing. 9 out of 10 times
>they screw up and what has happened can not be undone logically speaking.
>but then again its books and movies so no big deal. but once u screw up your time 
>line. you must remain in that time period or become a time traveler. end of story.
>but if you do what u suggested which is kill your forebearer. no return for u. 
>think about it. my dissertation is done.

Steve, if you have a Pern-consistant theory, propose it. Don't
assume the entire world agrees with a theory you haven't
elaborated on.

Joshua
|         A shimmering net undulating like an infinite borealis.             |
|                                                  - Chapterhouse: Dune      |
|                                                                            |
| jsbell@acs.ucalgary.ca  Academic Computing Services, University of Calgary |