TOMTIT transporters and time travel

Gordon Bobic mentions a huge release of energy at both the points of
arrival and departure of a time-travelling object. That sounds rather
like a Dean R.Koontz book called Lightning, where every time one of the
travellers arrives at his destination after entering the time machine,
there's a huge amount of lightning discharges even though there's no
thunderstorm or anything. Just to spoil it ('cos this is relevant to
time travel), the time machine was created by the Nazis during WWII, and
could only allow people to travel forward in time - and no matter how
long they stayed there, whenever they pressed the button on their belt
to return, they always came back 11 minutes after they had left.
Furthermore, because they didn't have computers, their maths meant that
they were often many miles away from their intended destinations - the
hero of the story simplified it by mentioning the Earth rotating beneath
them as they exist in a separate dimension while travelling, or
something. I have the book if anyone wants to read the time-travel
theory.

But why does travelling into the future send one into another universe
altogether? Please explain (if ya can!). And incidentally, I simply
meant let's give the physics buffs a chance to not be pestered - it's
all very well saying this is voluntary, but the temptation to bring
someone else's theory down is too tempting for some! (They probably
hate themselves for it, but they reply anyway, neglecting that
oh-so-important work for another ten minutes...)

D.Chilard

Previously, Chilard D said:
Just like in the Terminator films.
One slightly tongue-in-cheek book on time travel, "Napoleon Disentimed",
has the scientists who invent a time machine discovering a law of
Temporal Conservation, similar to those for energy and momentum. If you
bring something forward in time (in the book it just happened to be
Emperor Napoleon I), then it must be "gone" from the original period for
a length of time equal to its stay in the present time. So, say we bring
Napoleon from the early 19th century to the present day, and keep him
here for a week. We cannot return him to his own time any sooner than
one week after he vanished.

(Snip!)
I read a trilogy of sci-fi novels which dealt with the concept of
"alternity" - the existence of an infinite number of parallel universes
that differ from our own. One aspect mentioned was that not only were
these alternate worlds different from each other physically, as in the
placement of matter, but also temporally - they were all "out of sync"
with each other to varying degrees, ranging from microseconds to
geological ages. It was a damn interesting read, but, frustratingly, I
can't remember the name or author of it. It had an alternate Earth on
which the fungi had evolved into "omnivores", "herbivores" and
intelligent creatures resembling manta rays. If anyone can tell me the
title and author, I'd be much obliged. But as far as the question about
travelling into another universe when you time travel, it could be that
you don't actually travel in time, but step "sideways" into an alternate
universe that is however many years ahead or behind you. Possibly.

Later,

Steve :-)
_
__
(oO)
/||\

I read a trilogy of sci-fi novels which dealt with the concept of
"alternity" - the existence of an infinite number of parallel universes
that differ from our own. One aspect mentioned was that not only were
these alternate worlds different from each other physically, as in the
placement of matter, but also temporally - they were all "out of sync"
with each other to varying degrees, ranging from microseconds to
geological ages. It was a damn interesting read, but, frustratingly, I
can't remember the name or author of it. It had an alternate Earth on
which the fungi had evolved into "omnivores", "herbivores" and
intelligent creatures resembling manta rays. If anyone can tell me the
title and author, I'd be much obliged

pIERSAnthony- Of Man and Manta trilogy
bk1- omnivore
bk2- orn
bk3- ox
...............................................................................
clyth@
In relativity, matter tells space how to curve, and space tells matter
how to move. The Heart of Gold told space to get knotted...
D. Adams Life, The Universe and Everything

----------
From: Dismukes S
Sent: 20 January 1998 16:21
To: 'ifis-chat@'
Subject: RE: TOMTIT transporters and time travel

On Tuesday, January 20, 1998 2:41 PM, Chilard D
[SMTP:D.Chilard@] wrote:
WWII,
It isn't really a different universe, but it is, as far as you are
concerned, if you remain at the point in time where someone was
zapped forward in time. Because they will from then on always exist
in the point in time that is in the future from when you are looking.
So, by the time you reach the point in time where they are, they will
have moved further forward.
So, it isn't at the same time. It isn't the same one because you will
never experience the presence of the person forwarded into the
future, even though you have been in the same universe at the
beginning, this universe will cause the creation of another two at
the point of time travel. The time traveller will now be in a
different time universe, and will no longer exist in your universe.
Also, in this other universe, there may be two of them, depending on
how the recursive, permanent creation of universes goes.

Of course, you could argue, that the time traveller will immediately
be replaced by himself from the previous universe jumping forward a
few seconds. So, it all gets very wierd, and you can more-less say
anything you like, with it being very difficult to prove otherwise...

I'll leave you all confused now with lots of food for imagination. :)
I understand what you said - I simply think that the only way to "not
pester them" is to terminate the list, which they would probably
object to as much as anyone else. :)

Gordan

Oops.
Just as well the hero was wrong then.
Otherwise you'd have the amusing effect of not just the earth's rotation, but
also its orbit to take into account.

Maybe there have been LOADS of alchemists and mad scientists who have invented
time travel, and just fooped off into outer space, somewhere else on the
earth's trajectory, to burn up next time the earth came round and hit them.

Now that's an embarassing way to die.

Okay, now we're fully on the subject of the time machine in Dean
R.Koontz's Lightning. Well, I think the point of existing in another
dimension while the Earth rotates beneath the traveller was a *serious*
oversimplification. However, as to the point of the Earth's orbit as
well, I think everything is relative to the Earth anyway - probably
because of its huge, gigantic mass; after all, lightning is a discharge
from the Earth to the cloud (although a path is carved out in the air
from the cloud downwards to a high point, the electrical spark we see is
going back up to the cloud - the Earth is the biggest supplier of free
electrons on, well, Earth), and an awful lot of it happens every time
someone uses the Lightning Tunnel. Hence the hero and heroine can spot
the Nazis coming to assassinate them a mile off - the Nazis can nip
forward to the future and check out the news reports of where our heroes
were at the time, but their maths, as has been stated before, isn't
accurate enough to get them very close to their target, so their
lightning can be seen in the distance marking their arrival.

But the Earth is acting as a kind of (if you'll forgive the comparison)
magnet, so that's where they always end up - somewhere on Earth (with
their lousy maths landing them several miles away from their target
location). After all, who's to say the Earth isn't staying still, with
the Sun orbiting it (and the planets orbiting the Sun)? In relative
terms, one can say that is true. The "relative" part is essential for
one not to be regarded as insane, of course... but that's why they don't
materialise in deep space or anything, and even if they did, they'd just
need to hold their breath and press the recall device on the belt before
their lungs imploded...

Anyway, it's a more convincing time machine than H.G.Wells' pile of
brass tubes and things. Incidentally, I saw the film on TNT (a
satellite movie channel which is actually free, although showing only
three (usually old) movies a night), and the control panel bore the
legend "Made by Herbert G.Wells"! The makers couldn't resist it, could
they... but enough of this gay banter. On the subject of time machines,
I ask any physicists who want to volunteer their information (I know
you've got courses to do, so don't strain your brains with this one),
but does the Back to the Future component, the "flux capacitor",
actually make any kind of sense? Or would such a thing just store
energy created by magnetic flux, if it followed that name?

I must be going now - I'm feeling a right TOMTIT... [laugh now]

D.Chilard

CHILARD D said
Do you really think they could survive in deep space even for that
long. By my understanding, either the temperature or complete lack
of pressure will kill a person in no time. I know that nobody has put
people into space without suits just for the sake of experimentation,
but it is perfectly reasonable to expect a person exposed to deep
space sans suit not to survive even momentary exposure.
Of course I might be wrong. Let the physicists speak.
...............................................................................
clyth@
In relativity, matter tells space how to curve, and space tells matter
how to move. The Heart of Gold told space to get knotted...
D. Adams Life, The Universe and Everything

----------
From: Chilard D
Sent: 21 January 1998 13:25
To: 'ifis-chat@'
Subject: RE: TOMTIT transporters and time travel

Okay, now we're fully on the subject of the time machine in Dean
R.Koontz's Lightning. Well, I think the point of existing in another
dimension while the Earth rotates beneath the traveller was a *serious*
oversimplification. However, as to the point of the Earth's orbit as
well, I think everything is relative to the Earth anyway - probably
because of its huge, gigantic mass; after all, lightning is a discharge
from the Earth to the cloud (although a path is carved out in the air
from the cloud downwards to a high point, the electrical spark we see is
going back up to the cloud - the Earth is the biggest supplier of free
electrons on, well, Earth), and an awful lot of it happens every time
someone uses the Lightning Tunnel. Hence the hero and heroine can spot
the Nazis coming to assassinate them a mile off - the Nazis can nip
forward to the future and check out the news reports of where our heroes
were at the time, but their maths, as has been stated before, isn't
accurate enough to get them very close to their target, so their
lightning can be seen in the distance marking their arrival.

But the Earth is acting as a kind of (if you'll forgive the comparison)
magnet, so that's where they always end up - somewhere on Earth (with
their lousy maths landing them several miles away from their target
location). After all, who's to say the Earth isn't staying still, with
the Sun orbiting it (and the planets orbiting the Sun)? In relative
terms, one can say that is true. The "relative" part is essential for
one not to be regarded as insane, of course... but that's why they don't
materialise in deep space or anything, and even if they did, they'd just
need to hold their breath and press the recall device on the belt before
their lungs imploded...

Anyway, it's a more convincing time machine than H.G.Wells' pile of
brass tubes and things. Incidentally, I saw the film on TNT (a
satellite movie channel which is actually free, although showing only
three (usually old) movies a night), and the control panel bore the
legend "Made by Herbert G.Wells"! The makers couldn't resist it, could
they... but enough of this gay banter. On the subject of time machines,
I ask any physicists who want to volunteer their information (I know
you've got courses to do, so don't strain your brains with this one),
but does the Back to the Future component, the "flux capacitor",
actually make any kind of sense? Or would such a thing just store
energy created by magnetic flux, if it followed that name?

I must be going now - I'm feeling a right TOMTIT... [laugh now]

D.Chilard

On Wed, 21 Jan 1998, Lyth Chris wrote:
Many films and series, and indeed books, talk of the magic 30 seconds (see
Hitch Hiker's Guide for example.) This is the time it takes for your blood
to start boiling and the pressure differences to blow you to little bits.
Dunno how true it is... But it seems to be quite common. (Event horizon
anyone?)

Ben

*---------------------------------------------*
| IVE SEEN THE FU *---------------------------*
| S T |
| R U |
| UCER STI DNA ER |
*-----------------*

O _____________
/ \ /3
o / X BAD \ / 3
< Fish X 3
. \__ TRIP / \ 3
/____________/ \3

In article <"/GUID:5DA93E814F92D111BB5D000000000001*"@MHS>, Lyth Chris <Chris.C.Lyth@> wrote:
I am pretty sure that some NASA folks did it (accidentally). It is not good
for the complexion, but one can survive for quite a long time in hard
vacuum. The death is not due to exploding, by the way - one drowns, slowly,
in blood from the lungs. The problem is that the vapour pressure of blood
at about 37C is quite enough to cause boiling in the alveoli. The other
problem is that the blood pools in the chest and the partial pressure of
oxygen in the blood drops real fast, causing unconsciousness in less than a
minute. Effectively you exhale the oxygen that was dissolved in your blood,
and then pass out.

As to holding your breath ... forget it. You would be lucky to raise 2psi
with the breath - and to hold your breath your mouth and palates would need
to stand the 15psi of atmospheric pressure. Our resident diver (hi there)
ought to be able to confirm this, since divers have the same problem when
ascending (10 metres = 1 atmosphere, approximately). How are divers trained
to cope with this?

One interesting aside is that NASA has designed and tested "budget"
space-suits which simply consist of form-fitting cloth with an elastic
bodice and a breather a bit like an aqualung. You breathe pure oxygen at
about 2psi, and the bodice squeezes your lungs and diaphragm so you can
exhale. The skin is exposed to vacuum, which has the great advantage that
you can be cooled by perspiration. The cloth prevents the blood from
pooling in skin capilliaries and boiling there, but the skin is airtight and
so doesn't really mind vacuum. I believe that this design of suit is
actually in service for emergency-only use.


For an SF account of this, read "Footfall", which had one author (Pournelle)
who was an engineer at NASA JPL, and most likely knows far more about this
than any of us. It's also a good book, which should appeal to those of the
hard-SF persuasion. If you're not of the hard SF persuasion, how did you
survive reading this to the end?



Simon

---
"This too is meaningless, a chasing after the wind" -Ecclesiastes 4:16

simon@ | Not affiliated to any religion
simon@ | Not affiliated to any politics
H (+44/0)1784 431998 | Not affiliated to any ideology
W (+44/0)1784 434568 (GMT/BST) | What does that make me?

"I have been asked to point out, as if you couldn't guess, that my rantings
are not the opinions of One Chip Solutions. So now you know, don't you..?"

I'm not sure I see a similarity.
A diver is always breathing air at the same pressure as the surrounding water,
so if you're at 10m (yup, that's 2 atmospheres) you're also breathing air at 2
atmospheres, and it's not a problem.

The problems occur, as you pointed out, when ascending from 10m to the surface,
where the pressure HALVES, and so the air in your lungs DOUBLES in volume. This
can result in what's technically known as "a burst lung", and the trade-secret
tought to divers, over many weeks of intense training is "keep your mouth
open when ascending". It works a treat.

On a related note, swimming underwater whilst breathing through a 12" snorkel
is easy. Trying to breathe through a longer tube becomes progressively more
difficult. And around about a meter underwater (apparently), it starts to
become hard work to breathe air at surface pressure, whilst the water presses
in on your chest.

Endurance breath-hold divers (renowned madmen) suffer similar difficulties,
when diving to great depths. Eventually, the pressure of the water compresses
their lungs to more than their natural position when exhaling. This is also
quite bad for you.
My memory of it is a tad sketchy, but I think it was a good book. I forget
anything about skintight spacesuits. Just miniature elephants invading earth.

Dominic.

"A vacuum is a hell of a lot better than some of the stuff
that nature replaces it with." [Tenessee Williams]

Or, to be more accurate, just in case anyone tries it - "Don't hold your
breath when ascending". (You can hold your breath with your mouth open.)

Now generally, you're ascending so slowly you just breathe normally, but in the
event of an emergency, rapid ascent, you would actually breathe out constantly.
If you leave the bottom at 30m and shoot towards the surface, the air in your
lungs quadruples in volume by the time you reach it, so you can literally
exhale one long breath.

Thinking back on the "Naked in space" scenario, I guess the eyes would be the
things to keep closed. Not just because of the dangers of being blinded by
sunlight, etc. but also because a freeze-dried eye might not work too well
thereafter.

You'd also probably get a burst eardrum, or "reverse ear" syndrome, where the
air in the spaces behind your eardrum tries to expand and get out. Again, when
diving, you generally ascend so slowly that this has time to just work its way
out naturally, but in a rapid ascent, it can bruise or rupture the eardrum.
This will leave you at best with slightly muffled hearing for a few days, and
deaf at worst.

This is guesswork though. They didn't teach space-travel on my diving course.
We're not even supposed to fly for a day after diving, never mind leave the
planet.

Dominic.

"The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources."
[Albert Einstein (1879-1955)]

In article <1170B34A3@>, "Dominic Thomas" <dthomas@> wrote:
Lowering pressure causes gases inside the body to expand.
Rapidly lowering pressure causes gases inside the body to expand rapidly.

The body cannot contain much pressure without sustaining damage from
expansion, since bodies aren't very tough.

Divers (and, to a lesser extent, pilots) learn about the effects of pressure
changes on the body, and hence can make some good guesses about which
pressure changes will hurt, where, and how much.


[...]
The skintight spacesuits weren't mentioned, but several people were exposed
to space and survived.

I'd say that the mention of "minature elephants" constituted a spoiler. But
nevermind. The authors carefully conceal it for the first 30% of the book,
but then the US imprint has a (pretty good) picture of one on the inside
front cover. The UK paperback is far better, with a nice picture of what
looks like a mushroom cloud viewed from LEO.
I have been assured that this .sig was random, BTW.


Simon

---
"This too is meaningless, a chasing after the wind" -Ecclesiastes 4:16

simon@ | Not affiliated to any religion
simon@ | Not affiliated to any politics
H (+44/0)1784 431998 | Not affiliated to any ideology
W (+44/0)1784 434568 (GMT/BST) | What does that make me?

"I have been asked to point out, as if you couldn't guess, that my rantings
are not the opinions of One Chip Solutions. So now you know, don't you..?"