# Proved

G

#### Guest

##### Guest
A pencil can be in the past, but not like it was before, and can be in the future as its destination. Both conditions as unique. My previous theory is completely wrong, but I keep an eye on it, and the other forward. This has still the chance of interaction between the pencil and the past or future out of it, having the same effect before and after.

So, by example, I get a pencil in my hand, in two seconds I brake it, the same pencil get two different "state", but it remains the sames, I ask you about the interaction, wich are you describing?

-]

<This message has been edited by dob (edited 17 June 2001).>

I'm sure your English is better than mine. That wasn't my point. It's the possible interaction of the pencil to other things in time, and you don't have to break it.

The interaction of the pencil:

In the current time: he touch the table, and he's near to the eraser.

In the past time: same
In the futur time: same (if I don't touch anything).

But I don't know what would be the interaction with any other "ingredients" of the desk within time if I don't interact myself with it or if no "source" of "power" creates an event with it.

I imagine "interaction" with the meaning of things(...) modificated (...) by the presence or the power(...) of other things. In this case we talk about time and space, physics - in a sens. Maybe I still don't get your point, could you give me an other example please?

Hi dob, long time no see!!! Okay listen, suppose I have a pencil now on the center of a table. Then I wait two hours to put it on the edge. If it goes back in time where it is now, it would appear two hours before, but on the edge instead of the center as it was before. Now, here's a question for you: how do you think a laser did that without rotation?

I don't really know, but I feel you're going to tell me!

I heard from someone the fact that if something goes back in time, it would hit or get hit by other things, due to the rotation of the planet. That's true, but gaining control of it by calculation. The laser took a different position because of it. dob, no theory is stable. Remember, it's one more comment among others. The pencil is just an example to correct my thoughts.

PS The way I multiply myself is with the purpose of support, since I didn't have opinions.

Ok! Now I got what you mean, the rotation of the planet... I got it. But why the laser should have a different tangent about this performance?

dob, about the multiply comedy. I don't intend to do it anymore, even if I don't get replies. The laser took different tangent due to rotation, I think. Another thing, don't worry in doing the same as I do because I understand you anyway. If you like to keep doing it, then so be it.

Replies
4
Views
425
Replies
10
Views
345
Replies
0
Views
298
Help Users

You haven't joined any rooms.

You haven't joined any rooms.