Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Pyrotex
Well, duh! I argue with your comments. My model was based on different assumptions than you state above. I assumed the user moves the watch hand and then "triggers" the time machine.
|
The assumption was not only unnecessary but wrong!
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Doctordick
When the stem is turned, the wearer (and the wearer only) is transported to the new time indicated on the device.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Pyrotex
But in the meantime, mass and energy must be allowed to conserve.
|
That is an assumption as there is no information as to how the machine works; it may consume energy from some energy source inside the device or the effect could be exothermic and produce energy in operation. At the moment we are ignorant of such things; we only know what it does. Which I described very carefully in the post.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Doctordick
... his instantaneous passage through time ...
|
Instantaneous is usually presumed there; that is why I specified that the change is tied exactly to the position of the hands on the display (what the stem was moving). But I am proud of you for realizing that the common perception (that he simply disappears) is physically illogical.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Pyrotex
If you are going to add more requirements, more assumptions, more constraints, then of course, the problem changes and another solution is needed.
|
It seems to me that the requirement that the time position of the wearer is exactly the reading on the device is sufficient to require each and every conclusion I put forth. If I am wrong in that, please point it out and explain to me what my error is.
Have fun – Dick
"The simplest and most necessary truths are the very last to be believed."
by Anonymous
