For anyone who is interested,

In my post of October 11, 2001 14:57:28 UTC, "My Two Cents", I made a significant error! A slip of the lip so to speak; it happens when you talk without thought!

Concerning super luminal velocities in Einstein’s space, I stated:

"Actually, these paths correspond to paths where the *proper length* (Einstein's invariant interval) is imaginary (which I have always found funny). In Einstein's space, an imaginary path is considered to be time like, that is in fact, the connection between super luminal motion and time travel: i.e., there always exists a frame of reference where the super luminal motion will appear to be time travel."

While what I should have said is:

"Actually, these paths correspond to paths where the *proper length* (Einstein's invariant interval) is real. In Einstein's space, an imaginary path is considered to be time like. If a rest frame exists for an object in Einstein’s space (in the rest frame the object does not move through space, only through time), then a transform exists such that the invariant interval between any two points along the space time path of the object is entirely time like: i.e., imaginary. Super luminal motion and time travel are connected if one presumes an object can follow a path along which the invariant interval is real (space like). Clearly, if it follows such a path, the object can be in two different places at the same time. A little thought should also convince you that one can also say that there always exists a frame of reference where the super luminal motion will appear to include time travel."

What I have always seen as funny is that, in Einstein’s picture, one can say with all candor that a real object cannot follow any real path in his space.

Sorry to confuse anyone!

Have fun -- Dick

• Either we're all sadly mistaken - smartguy - October 15, 2001 - 17:43 UTC