Blue Light Productions Presents...

Start at Part 1.

[SOL returns with Tom and Crow doing something on the computer. Mike 
comes in.]

MIKE: Watcha doing, guys?
CROW: We're looking for something. Just trying to find out about "Enter the 
MIKE: You didn't believe him, did you?
TOM: Of course not. That's why we're looking. To prove him wrong.
MIKE: Just _where_ are you looking?
CROW: The Internet Movie Database.
MIKE: How did you get there?
TOM: Dr. F. has a permanent link set up.
CROW: Here we go. This only has the German release dates, but "Enter" 
came out in Janurary '74, and "Return" came out in August '75.
MIKE: I don't know which programs P. R. (Phil) Houtz was watching, but it 
obviously wasn't anywhere in this reality.
CROW: Hey, what's this list here? "Slackers", "Wax, Or A Discovery of 
Television Amoung The Bees", "Vampire Hunter D.", "Dog Soldier: Shadows 
Of The Past", "Night of the Lepus", "The Glass Jungle", "Waxwork II: Lost 
in Time", "Pumaman", "Tobor", "Night of the Comet", "Frankenstein and the 
Monster from Hell"?
MIKE: This must be a list Dr. F is preparing for us.
TOM: Quick, wipe it! Wipe it!
[Crow does so.]
ALL: Phew.
MIKE: They looked bad.

[Divers alarums.]

ALL: Argh!

[They enter the theatre and assume the positions.]

>Article 1850 of alt.sci.time-travel:
>Newsgroups: alt.sci.time-travel
>From: (ALYAN)

TOM: Hey, look everyone. It's ALYAN!

>Subject: My thoughts on Time.

CROW: This shouldn't take to long.

>Message-ID: <>
>Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
>Date: Fri, 1 Sep 1995 07:31:41 GMT
>Lines: 148

MIKE: Try again, Crow.

>I have a couple of questions.

CROW: So do I. Why am I having to suffer you?

>1. I am "convinced" that "time travel" is HOW IT WORKS.

TOM: Oooh. Nice question.

>   So, it is not a matter of trying to figure out how to save Hiroshima,
>   or postulate mechanisms to visit your greatgrandparents,

TOM: I wanna visit my greatgrandparents.
MIKE: Well, remember to postulate your mechanisms first.

>   BUT WE SHOULD BE LOOKING AT how (what we want to call) TimeTravel
>   is happening all the time.

CROW: WHY DOES HE SUDDENLY speak in a loud voice?
MIKE: He thinks we aren't listening to him?
CROW: But we aren't.

>   Uh, as a question:

TOM: Finally. A question.

>                       Haven't you ever experienced thoughts in your own
>   mind which did not logically follow from any past sequence of your
>   thinking?

CROW: Like now? When none of your thoughts follow from nothing logical 

>             Can you feel the difference between "trying" to figure out
>   "how to timetravel" and simply realizing that "timetravel" is going
>   on ALL THE (um) TIME.

CROW: I don't know. (um) Can I?
TOM: Is that an (um) question?
MIKE: It starts with (um) "Can you".
TOM: Yeah, but there's no (um) question mark.
MIKE: That's a pretty long way to go just for a little (um) grammer flame.

>                          It is literally a "change of heart" about this
>   whole thing.  
>   Time Travel is not "Impossible".
>   Time Travel is The Way It Works.

MIKE: Capitalisation: Your Guide To Avoiding Making Points.

>2. The MultiVerse model is very efficient in terms of "storage requirements":
>   At a "decision point" (which I actually look at in terms of The Recognition
>   Of A PENDING ISSUE... because the awareness of the existance of a CHOICE
>   can be very subtle and such awareness can exist for a VERY LONG TIME before
>   one actually commits to a decision one way or another... let alone ACTING
>   (as opposed to "merely" mentally NOTICING!) according to the DECISION)

[Mike puts his finger up and traces the line across the screen, mouthing 
the words.]
MIKE: Umm. Did anyone get that?
CROW: Nope.
TOM: Not a word.

> I was saying, At a "decision point" (which is NOT tightly located in
>   time, as per the above parenthetical diversion),

TOM: Argh! He's still going on about it! Make him stop!
[Mike pats Tom]
MIKE: There, there, Tom. It's not as bad as all that.

>                                                    the only Difference 
>   Between The Child-Universes is the (Binary? Spectrum-Like??) RESULT of the
>   DECISION which spawns them.

TOM: Oo, oo. I think I have it. A DECISION, which may happen a LONG TIME 
ago, spawns many Universes.
MIKE: No. It spawns EXACTLY the same Universes.
CROW: I think Alyan should STAY on his Medication.

>   Jeez.  I think it is important to stress!

MIKE: Exclamation marks!: Your Guide! To Stressing! In Really! Weird Ways!
CROW: I'm already far too stressed.

>                                             that this "tree" of (binary??
>   spectrum-like?? separation of)

TOM: I wish he'd make up his mind.
MIKE: I think his mind is just making this up.
CROW: I don't think he has a mind.

>                                  daughter universes IS NOT tightly 
>   coupled to any "time" dimension in a clocklike sense...  
>   INSTEAD:  navigation on this "tree(?)" is determined by the SET of 
>   DECISIONS which "address/identify/characterize" a given branch-point.
>   "Mindset" as in Mind-settings, viewpoint-parameters, comes to mind.

TOM: AND NOW: reading this post is determined by a COMPLETE LUNY.
MIKE: who is known as "Doctor Forrestor/Dr. F/The Mad Scienist"
CROW: "Madman" as in irrational, hates us, comes to this man.

>   This model seems so decoupled from the "standard" notion of clock-"time" 
>   that it becomes a good question to look at the SEQUENCE of decisions 
>   which got (gets!) one to a particular universe, its "decisional address",
>   so to speak.  

MIKE: So each universe had a "decisional address"?
TOM: Looks that way. I'd like to see the "I think I'll wear blue pants on 
Tuesday" universe.
CROW: I'd like to see the "I think I'll wear no clothes today, as I am a 
female" universe.
TOM: That was incredibly sexist, Crow.
CROW: Bite me.

>   Is the 
>     TIME-ORDER (sequence)
>   in which "one" (the universe-hopping mind) 
>     DECIDES == SELECTS among the Decision-Addressable-Universes
>   is this ordering-in-time IMPORTANT?

CROW: Anyone?
MIKE: Is the time ordering in ordering-in-time important to selecting the 
time ordering... ummm...
TOM: Is selecting time important in decisions, and does the order of 
decisions in time... erm...
MIKE: Nope. He's got us.

>   For example:
>   Is there an * Important Difference * between 
>   FIRST 
>   CONVINCING ONESELF (uh, DECIDING) ((perhaps quite temporarily ... !))

TOM: Heaven forbid anything actually being permanent.

>   that
>      (...and all that this DECISION i-m-p-l-i-e-s...)

CROW: Let's SHOUT s-l-o-w-l-y.

>   and then, SECOND, Deciding that
>      (...and all that this DECISION i-m-p-l-i-e-s...)

TOM&MIKE: YES! L-e-t-'-s.

>   ... or doing it in the opposite order?

CROW: Over to you, Mike. Is believing in a god more important than 
believing in a book?
MIKE: Important to what?

>   Well, for one thing, look at the intermediate states involved,
>   and then look at the moments-of-transition, during which one is
>   probably feeling, throughout body and mind, and on the radio in his room,
>   the effects of the ramifications of the Decisions being Made.

MIKE: So you can only decidion-travel if you're listening to a radio?
TOM: No, only if you're listening to a radio in *his* room.

>   Certainly you have encountered people who haven't made an Important
>   Decision in years... since they were in their late teens perhaps!

MIKE: [as husband] What shall we have for dinner tonight, honey?
CROW: [as wife] Gee, I haven't made a decision that big since I was 19.

>   In a very real sense, such people are in suspended animation.

CROW: In a very real sense, you're mind is in suspended animation.

>   Wierdly, the people with fixed Decisions seem to age faster, I think.

TOM: I think I'll have the chicken again tonight.
MIKE: My god, Tom. You've just aged 100 years!

>   People whose Decision "tree" (location/settings) is free to morph 
>   as they see fit, well for one thing it is much harder to guess their ages.

CROW: I think I'll buy _Playboy_ instead of _Penthouse_, this week.
MIKE: I think I can guess _your_ age, Crow.

>    WITH MY PARENTS?"  (I wish!)

MIKE: Well, that's certainly what I'd first think of doing if I could 
travel in time.

>   Frankly I'm not exactly sure, you see, but there are timetravelling 
>   "angels" in my mind who have led me to write this, or should I say, 

CROW: Or should I say, I've been listening to the voices in my head, and 
I have no idea what any of this has to do with time travel, but I thought 
I'd post anyway.

>   I think that the whole way TIMETRAVEL is being looked at in this forum
>   is blinding us guys to the actual nature of what our mind/s is/are doing,
>   and to what we really WANT out of "timetravel".

TOM: Whereas them girls know exactly what they want out of "timetravel".

>   For one thing, I think it is NECESSARY in looking at "actual" timetravel
>   (having lunch with Cleopatra; joining in at Gettysburg) with a VERY
>   flexible "Decision Tree", at least until a CORE DECISION BRANCH is reached
>   which makes Timetravel feel less "impossible" to your heart.

TOM: If I didn't know better, I'd say this was Robert McElwaine posting 
under a psudeonym.
CROW: What makes you think you know better?

>                                                                 You can't
>   achieve an "Understanding" of Timetravel if you carry around a DEEP-SEEDED
>   (misspelling quite intended)

CROW: Abuse quite intended.
TOM: Y'know. Ratliff also apologises for his spelling mistakes.
MIKE: I don't think he considers this an unintentional mistake.
>                                belief/decision/fear/resignation/"sense"
>   that you are trying to achieve something that "really doesn't happen" 
>   and that you are just "toying around with interesting (read go-nowhere)
>   thought-pastries.

TOM: New 'thought-pastries'. Light and fluffy that really don't happen 
and go-nowhere.

>3. People seemed to ignore the posting about Larry Niven's clue-drop, uh,
>   I mean, science-fiction-story...

CROW: Larry Niven does not say the word of God.

>                                    about how there may be an aspect to 
>   Time which manages to "minimize" the effects of certain decision and even
>   actions.  

TOM: Yes, you too can have your decisions and actions 'minimize'd.
CROW: Does that mean there'll be a little me running around deciding and 
acting for me?
MIKE: <shudder> That doesn't bare thinking about.

>   I have worked with graphics systems which draw "spline curves".
>   In using these systems, the human artist/engineer adjusts a set of
>   different types of "control points" which the System then obeys to
>   slalom a nice curve into existence.

CROW: <as ABYAN> "And since I can draw nice curves, I now know everything 
about time and space."

>   A similar system could be used to write "novels":  

TOM: How are "novels" different to novels?
MIKE: They're novel ABYAN-style!

>   "This character needs to become a rich industrialist by the time
>   World War 2 begins.  He needs to marry the girl who steals the code
>   machine for the British in chapter 17.  His name needs to reflect his 
>   interest in building scale models of small New England towns."

TOM: This is how Tom Clancy got started.

>   I hope by now you have developed the thought that perhaps we ourselves
>   are living inside a really neat story(-line) generating system...

CROW: If so, we are now ready to begin. <evil laughter>

>   ...which perhaps has a golf-course-like terrain of "necessary" events
>   (and meta-events like "and here the media begins discussing the notion 
>   of a third sex in order to reify the concept of Thirdness"...)
>   that, like powerful gravity-wells in story-plot-space, or like HOLE 14,
>   MUST be dealt with before the "story" gets to HOLE 17...

TOM: First stories, now golf. ABYAN has a wide range of interests.
CROW: Why does the word "Acehole" come to mind?

>4. I touched on the idea of CORE DECISIONS above in a cuple of places.

CROW: And we're still trying to clena that mess up, thank you.

>   Some decisions are more "central" than others, in that their ramifications
>   include other, less "central" decisions.

TOM: Some decisions contain less important decisions, so they are more 

>   It would be VERY INTERESTING to come up with a list (or map?) of
>   these ISSUES.  How many are there?  What is their "structure"?
>   Which is Numero Uno?  Is there a small Elite clustering of VERY POWERFUL
>   ISSUES?  

CROW: I have enough trouble getting my issues of "Legion of Super Heroes" 
into order.

>   Take note that I want to treat these as ISSUES... to be used in 
>   navigating one's way through the structure they create/emanate/whatever.

TOM: They create!
CROW: They emanate!
MIKE: They whatever!

>   Probably, Deciding CERTAIN Issues in one way INSTEAD OF in another way is
>   necessary to "get to" universes in which one can time-travel... or

TOM: So, if you could redecide an old decision in another way, you'll end 
up in another universe?
CROW: Yeah, but would anything really change?
MIKE: Nope.

>   affect the story-writing machine... or make rubies appear in your pocket.

CROW: Well, not so much rubies as rubes.

>Well, I've said enough for one posting...


>Ian Allen <>
>P.S. my favorite magic word is ALREADY.

CROW: My favourite magic word is BiteMe.

>-------------------------------------------------"duh"------my email signature
>-------------------------------------------------"duh"------my email signature
>-------------------------------------------------"duh"------my email signature
>-------------------------------------------------"duh"------my email signature

ALL: <over-kill ROFTL>

>Article 1851 of alt.sci.time-travel:
>From: (RHB)

TOM: Yay! Another post form RHB!
MIKE: Tom, you are really sick.

>Newsgroups: alt.sci.time-travel
>Subject: 24th Message from Future
>Date: Thu, 31 Aug 1995 18:49:30 -0800
>Organization: IslandNet
>Lines: 89
>Message-ID: <rhb-3108951849300001

CROW: I'm not a number, I am a free being.
MIKE: I think that's been done before.
CROW: Well, I'm doing it again.

>                       >
>The Messages from the Future can be obtained on the Web Page supplied to
>me by the mysterious four.  Directions as follows. 

[Once again, our heroes try to hide the address]

>What follows is one of the eight messages that arrived during my stay in
>hospital.  While I still remain in a convalescent ward, I have obtained

CROW: My driving license.

>the messages from my secretary and am releasing them to the various
>networks.  My change of mind is directly related to a visit I have had by
>a rather serious young woman claiming to be the Pauline McKinnon from the

TOM: PMS Hit Squad.
MIKE: We're gonna get letters for that.

>"Messages From the Future".  To make matters worse she was accompanied by
>Ms. JoJo Braun, the private detective I had the misfortune to hire.  Ms.
>McKinnon spoke to me in lawyerly qualifications but her message was
>clear--disassociate myself entirely from the "Messages From the Future" or

CROW: <falsetto> Or not. I don't care.

>I would suffer consequences.  Men of my generation did not back down from
>the Nazi brutes nor the military machine of the Japanese, I'll be damned
>if I'll be intimidated by a lawyer of all people.  What follows is the

CROW: Putrid remains of my purile poetry I wrote while feeling 
increadibly depressed.
TOM: That's dark, Crow. Keep it up.

>24th message from the future along with some comments my secretary somehow
>felt obliged to include.  -- RHB --
>Here's another one of these messages from the four boys who say they're
>from the future.  My, you boys do make Mr. B.  mad.  What I'd like to know
>is if you boys follow the soaps.  I'd give my eye teeth to know if some of
>my favorite characters are going to come back.

TOM: Yep, if I had access to the future, the first thing I'd ask is how 
some drivilling soap show is going.

>                                                Don't go asking that
>Carlos fellow if you can do it--he sounds like a old stick in the mud.  --
>Miss Dorothy Littlejohn

MIKE: <Minnewegean> Oh, that Carlos. He just ain't the barrel of monkeys 
he used to be.

>Hey trogs--just to remind you--you're committing retro-crime.  Even though
>reading our shit isn't illegal back in your time, if you know that it's
>gonna be illegal in the future, then the feds can convict of a retroactive
>crime--kinda like retroactive taxes.

TOM: But we don't have a choice! We're forced to read it!
MIKE: If we're lucky, the feds'll arrest Doctor Forrestor for us.
CROW: Yeah, but they'll probably leave us up here.

>                                      Anyway, here are a couple of news
>stories curtesy of the MIT and CalTech brainoos--give you an idea of how
>the future ends up sucking the big one.

CROW: This is the sort of thing that happens after watching too much 
"Weird Science".

>New York Times -- Nov.  25, 1998
>St.  Paul Minnesota -- The Modern Language Association Committee on the
>Status of Women (MLACSW) announced today that over 90 % of the nation's
>university campuses have adopted into law their controversial guidelines
>for "intellectual harassment".

CROW: Bite me.
TOM: Duh... Are you harrassing me?

>                                Central to the guideline is that
>"intellectual harassment" is to be classified as a form of sexual
>harassment and offenders subject to the same penalties and sanctions as
>sexual harassers.

TOM: Hah! That'll teach you for calling me "annoying". You'll go to jail 
for ten years!

>                   Intellectual harassment is to include: malicious humor
>directed at feminists and categorization of feminist works as narrow or

CROW: There goes alt.tasteless.
MIKE: As well as the rest of the net.

>                 The Committee meets in January of next year to consider
>whether criticism of the "intellectual harassment" guideline can be
>regarded as a form of sexual harassment.

TOM: So if people even criticise the "intellectual harrassment" 
guideline, they can be had up for sexual harrassment?
CROW: That says a lot for sex lives in the future.

>Vancouver Sun -- Nov 13, 2004
>Vancouver, Canada --  The Greenpeace organization made public a new and
>alarming computer analysis of rapidly approaching global disaster. 

CROW: It showed how fat Rosanne Barr would be by 2010.

>According to what Greenpeace claims to be a totally reliable computer

CROW: Which they probably did on a Pentium.
MIKE: I think they might have newer computers by then.
CROW: Does that mean it gets any better?

>      of the earth's weather and ecosystem, a crisis of staggering
>proportions is imminent.  The computer data suggest that global warming
>and acid rain, the environmental crises of the 1970's, 80's and 90's, have
>combined to virtually cancel each other out.  This has created a climate
>and environment of unprecedented stability or stagnation.

ALL: ARGH! Peace and goodwill is coming! Run away!

>                                                           Greenpeace
>scientists warn that the earth's ecosystem and lifeforms are in danger of
>"atrophying".  The crucial process of species adaptation and natural
>selection require a hostile environment

TOM: So why don't they move into space? That's hostile enough.

>                                        in order to maintain their

CROW: There's your answer, Tom. Ever tried-
MIKE: Enough, Crow. Don't remind me, okay?

>          assert Greenpeace spokepersons.  The environmental action group
>calls on government to avert the looming disaster with a total ban of
>fossil fuels.

TOM: Save disaster now, for a worse future for your children.

>So, like we said, we're in the underground arcade business now.  It's

MIKE: Those overgrown video machines are everywhere.
CROW: Let's see Darren Oswald get a highscore on them.

>       Each inner city typically has like 2 or 3 main gangs and, of
>course, they each get a big piece of the arcade receipts.  The money's a
>big motivator but probably knowing that the organized crime guys will wack
>em if they get out of line helps too.

TOM: Ah, the 'pay softly, but carry a large stick' routine.

>                                       Anyway, we go into your average
>slum zone to set up an arcade and we have like 5 guys from each gang for
>bodyguards.  Now, these guys hate each other and last week were probably
>trying to slit each other's throats,

CROW: Stick dynamite down each other's trousers, maybe, but slitting? 
That's so passe.

>                                     but now it's like there's some kind
>of professional gang psycho code of conduct.

CROW: <thick voice> You don't smash me with a ten pound sledge hammer, 
and I wont smash you.

>                                              They're looking at each
>other's pieces and trading tips on how to take down a convenience store. 
>Anyway, it takes us about two weeks to set up a place and staff it.  We
>devote half of each arcade to

CROW: Ross Perot.
MIKE: Ross Perot, everyone. Ross Perot.
<Round of applause>

>                              Guerrilla Gulag gaming rooms.  These gang
>guys can't get enough of it.  Each arcade is wired

TOM: So, be careful where you step.

>                                                   into the SplinterNet
>and we track each gamer's scores and stuff.  This is Carlos's idea.  He
>also has us put up a huge monitor to display the SplinterNet.

CROW: <bored voice> Gee, how original. It's only been done in about 500 

>                                                               Anyway,
>after we got the first arcade in business for a few days and are about to
>move on to another site, Carlos comes on the monitor with his Charelton
>Heston/Moses avatar and starts speaking to all the gang guys.

CROW: "It was 'Thou Shalt _Not_ Kill', guys. Honest."

>                                                               He tells
>them to settle their disputes with honor using Guerrilla Gulag.  The
>loser, Carlos says, will be subject to his sentencing.

TOM: Now there's someone who's been watching too much _Star Trek_.

>                                                        We think he's lost
>it but the gangs think it's the best thing since the invention of the

CROW: Of course, we think they've lost it as well, but that's a minor point.

>      So, Carlos/Charelton Heston/Moses starts sentencing the losers in
>the endless disputes to things like being a crossing guard for a month or
>being another gang's gofer

CROW: Come on, just one more piece of cheese.
MIKE: It's _gofer_, Crow.

>                           for a week.  By the time we move on to the next
>slum there hasn't been an incident of gang violence for a week, which is
>some type of all time record we're told.  So, there you have it,
>trogs--violent videogames reduce violence.  You heard it here first.

MIKE: Tell that to Parents Against Violence.

>Article 1841 of alt.sci.time-travel:

TOM: Cool name.
CROW: Suits an AOLer.
TOM: Hey.

>Newsgroups: alt.sci.time-travel
>Subject: Speculation On the Natures of Time and Kenetic Energy

ALL: <bored> Yay.

>Date: 1 Sep 1995 21:18:29 -0400
>Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
>Lines: 60
>Message-ID: <428bd5$>
>X-Newsreader: AOL Offline Reader

CROW: I think I may go offline if I read this.


MIKE: At least the start's good.

>"Time", that is the future universe, lies in the DIRECTION of the 4th
>dimention.  There is a different "universe" or "spacial" plane for each
>"instant" of time.

MIKE: Robert McElwaine has a lot to answer for.

>                    These are all "STACKED" in the direction of the 4 th

CROW: How many 'dimention's are there, Mike?
MIKE: I think demention is more appropriate.

>          (it is easier to visulise if we use 2D planar universes)  What
>we percieve as the passage of "Time" is actually our movement from one
>parallel plane to the other. (Not unlike the "frames" of a 3D" Movie or
>the pages in a book) 

TOM: Time Theory #3.
MIKE: Who needs orignal ideas when you can endlessly rehash old ones?

>     This Movement in the direction of the fourth dimention is a result of
>there being an INHERENT 4D element in matter, that is I am assuming that
>the most basic particles of matter possess a 4D "movement" or "impetus"

TOM: Yep, if you assume it's there, then it would have a result.
MIKE: But as it whether or not it is actually there... that's just a 
minor technical flaw.

>vector that is carrying the "proto-particle" at .707 light speed in the
>fourth dimentional direction.   

TOM: Any idea where he got one over root two from?
MIKE: Nope.
CROW: Is it just me, or he saying that everything that moves in time is 
going at .7 the spped of light?
MIKE: Yep.

>     There might be an energy conection here-- as what we might percieve
>as energy in our 3D world MAY be a factor of relative 4D vector angles
>inherent in matter .

MIKE: Then again, it MAY not. But as that would mean he's wrong, we'll 
ignore that.

>                     If , for example, the 4D vectors of two "particles"
>are parallel as they cut through the"time planes". there will be no
>relative kenetic energy between them--They will appear at rest relative to
>each other. If there is a difference in vector angles then we will note a
>chage in distace (movement) between the particles as they cut thru each
>plane.(energy?) If this vector angle is greater, then the relative
>movement will be greater.  Perhaps energy is really due to relative 4D
>vector angles?

TOM: He's actually arguing backwards, isn't he? He's trying to explain 
relativity in terms of his 'time vectors' and kinetic energy.
MIKE: At least he's trying to fit the theory to the facts.

>     Note also that as the angles increase(speed increase) one particle
>may tend to lag back timewise as the time planes are cut.(time dilation

CROW: He doesn't really know, does he? That's why he keeps putting "?"s in.
TOM: Never stopped people before.

>     note at a 90 degree 4D vector angle" time stands still" for one
>particle relative to the other as one is traveling BETWEEN time planes
>relative to the other. also note that thier relative speed is c.

TOM: If everything travels at .7c, and using Pythagasorus to work out the 
relative speed...mutter mutter... yes, you do get c!
CROW: IF everything travels at .7c, and IF one of the vectors are 
perpendicular to the time planes.

>                                                                 If the
>vector angle is greater than 90 deg., then one particle moves BACKWARD in
>time relative to the other.

CROW: He can't even think in simplified 3D models, can he? 

>     Interesting how this set up yeilds the time effects described in the
>theory of relativity, of course this explanation is highly simplfied, but
>I hope you see my point.  Perhaps I am on to something.

CROW: _On_ something, I'd agree with.

>------]----]------ t3 note parallel vectors- no relative particle
>------]----]-------t2      movement in time planes
>------]----]------ t2       vectors move thru planes(t1,t2,t3) at
>------]----]-------t1     .707c(cos 45 deg)

TOM: Umm, what's travelling at 45 degress there?
CROW: His mind to reality, I'd say.

>-----]------------ t3 angled vectors-note movement
>-----]---/-------- t2       from plane to plane also note time lag
>-----] /---------  t1

CROW: Also note exaggerated vectors to try to portray failing ideas.

>-----[---------   t3 at 90deg one particle stops moving
>-----]=====  t2   relative to other particle relative speed of
>-----]----------  t1   vector movement=c,  rel energy at maximum

TOM: A non-moving particle is travelling at the speed of c?

>Note that this "theory" is presented in a highly simplified form so as to
>clearly convey the basic concept.  Please limit your comments and/or
>flames re: to the basic arrangement described here.

CROW: Heh. Flame on.
TOM: Basically, the theory was contrived and had little or no relevance 
to kinetic energy.
MIKE: Well, that was easy.

>                                                    (Yes I know I did not
>discuss the source of these time planes--et al. but I did not want to make
>the subject more complex than it needed to be)
> M. Ray)  

TOM: That's it. Let's roll!

[Mike picks up Tom and all leave.]

[Door sequence, door sequence.]

[Mike and Tom can be seen. They are examing their "Orac".]

MIKE: So, what exactly does this thing do?
TOM: As far as I can tell, it blinks prettily.
MIKE: No time travel prospects?
TOM: Get real Nelson.

[Crow comes on from the left.]

MIKE: Hi, Crow. No hard feelings about before?
CROW: Huh, what?
TOM: The time travel trick.
CROW: That? That was years ago. I'm from the future where I got Time 
Travel to work.
MIKE: We've already tried that.

[Crow comes on from right.]

SECOND CROW: Hey, who's that? What am I doing there?
MIKE&TOM: Huh? Who? What?

[Mike and Tom collapse.]

[The second Crow blinks out, and Gypsy comes on.]

CROW: That's Gyspy. I didn't know you had that hologrammatic projector.
GYSPY: It's not something I talk about. I only used it now 'cos revenge 
is fun.

[Mike and Tom groan, then reappear.]

CROW: That'll teach you, Nelson.

[The MADS light flashes. Mike pushes the button.]

[DEEP 13]

DR. F: Hah. I've got you know. Despite your petty attempts I got the 
address of the "Messages From The Future" home page, and am now ready to 
subject them to you.


[All collapse without a word.]

[DEEP 13]

DR. F: Till the pain returns.

[He pushes the button.]

                                \  |  /
                                 \ | /
                                 / | \
                                /  |  \


'Mystery Science Theater 3000 and its related characters and situations are
trademarks of and (c) 1994 by Best Brains, Inc.  All rights reserved.'

'Use of copyrighted and trademarked material is for entertainment
purposes only; no infringement on the original copyrights or trademarks
held by Best Brains, Inc. is intended or should be inferred.'

These (and other) MiSTing can be found on my website:

Jamas Enright
"Answers answered and questions questioned."

>Greetings trogs.  So, everyone on the SplinterNet is guilty of treason.
>We guess if you're reading this that you're probably guilty too.

Back to the MST3K page.