dailygalaxy.com — In what must be the most touching and useful tribute to departed author Arthur C. Clarke ever attempted, a group of scientists authors are trying to dare time travel into existence. Sir Clarke famously stated that "when a [distinguished scientist] states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong".
Feb 13, 2009 View in Crawl 4
project46Feb 14, 2009
surely all we need for time travel is arthur and peter bishop?
cod4Feb 14, 2009
INCONCEIVABLE!
magicmarcFeb 14, 2009
To see what awfl means:plot y=1/(1-(x^2/((300000000)^2))) (mac users can use Grapher - comes free on a Mac.)Scroll across to when x = 3x10^8. Notice how suddenly it shoots up to infinity, and how its almost 0 for x << 3x10^8
diggymowFeb 14, 2009
I keep hoping for a lightsaber battle for some reason. I don't know why but Jack v Locke with lightsabers would be amazing.
hadakFeb 15, 2009
38 jiggawatts?!
ianharper11Feb 21, 2009
i would say that we time travel now! if you go back in history how long would it take to travel from the UK to the USA? that time can now be spent enjoying the destination
psolmsFeb 28, 2009
exactly. the fact is we are constantly travelling forward in time. the idea that one can 'jump' into a future (or past, but we all agree thats pretty much stupid) time hinges on causality. im not saying one cannot approximate the effect with some sweet ass light speed ship (if you can ever find an energy source for that), but it is not the same question. you are not 'jumping' through to a different time, you are merely not observing what happens around you while you are travelling LS. sort of like how the world keeps going when you go to sleep. or if you fell into a coma for 10 years. no one would say that you 'travelled' through time. it's a similar effect with relativity.