Re: Getting out of this world?

On Oct 8, 12:04 pm, Tina_H...@xxxxxxxxxxx (Tina Hall) wrote:
N...@xxxxxxx <Alien8...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Tina_H...@xxxxxxxxxxx (Tina Hall) wrote:
N...@xxxxxxx <Alien8...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Perhaps we should take this to email? (My adress is valid.) It's
getting a bit big for a conversation that involves just the two of
us.

I have the feeling others are occasionally peeking in. Best to keep
it in the group so that if I say something particularly stupid (as in
unrealistic) somebody will call me on it. You may have noticed I'm
conversing with Erik Max Francis and others about what constitutes a
'universe' and other details so as to avoid inaccuracy in the real-
world side of your story.

Also it's considered good form to leave this sort of discussion
archived so that if the question comes up again it can be referenced,
if for no other reason to avoid others' mistakes.

The snipes about your alleged inability to hold a discussion
according to others' standards we can both ignore. Me, I'm not so
picky. ;>)

As for the 'big' part I keep trying to snip out unnecessary bits...

"physical laws"

It describes what we know of the real world, and gives options for
what's possible.

So turn it around:

Made up stuff like magic and entities that make things by thought
doesn't fit into that. It's only possible under the assumption that
anything is possible. But I'd kick magic out of that, too.

...the Others live in the Other Place; to them _that's_ the 'real
world' and our universe is unimaginably magical since their rules
won't work here.

The Nodeworld is just as different: What we know here simply doesn't
apply.

I didn't mean to imply that I think it does; what will apply is only
the general principle that rules exist; there's a kind of order there
that the locals take advantage of to do things, even (or especially)
if it's a kind that cannot exist here.

On the other hand, the way to get there has to be consistent with
'here and now'. It should be possible, even if unlikely or
improbable. Improbable just means the percentage of probability is
very small, not zero. 0.001% is ok. And since I want a native earth
human to build something that has the desired effect, it has to be
with knowledge said native earth human can have.

Think about what you're asking for; a way to get people to a place
they cannot possibly exist that works according to physics _right up
until they get there_.

No. There is no stuff, there's absolutely nothing besides what they
make. It doesn't interact any way beyond how they made it. If they
want a tree to grow downwards, roots set in ground above, then it
does. Right next to a tree that grows upwards, with roots in the
ground below. And if they want a square butterfly to hop between
them on roller blades, then that's what they get.

If they want to step from one entity's meadow into another entity's
room, they do that without crossing any space because there's no
space in between. No real substance, no real distance.

Fine, they only have to want a thing to make it happen. How bad do
they have to want it- what keeps every stray thought from creating
whole worlds of crap? Suppose one wants a river in a particular place
and another doesn't? Who 'wins'?

No physical laws; no rules.

The only 'rule' is that if a native earth human steps out of the
made environment into the nothing, they cease to exist.

This is awkward. Cutting-edge physics suggests that matter sustains
the spacetime it exists in just as much as spacetime supports the
matter it contains.

...I agree with your definition of physical laws,
and they don't have them.

I think they could predict ours because of prior visits from similar
worlds, or this very visit. Or perhaps they're aware of the solid
world/universes.

Happy with that?

Statements that miss the 'no matter, no physical laws'? :) It
doesn't bother me, it's just not correct.

Then they probably don't properly speaking live in what could be
called a 'universe'.

Good, now here comes the part you may not like. In order for your
travelers to physically get from here to there, there _must_ be a
linkage between "physical laws" _here_ and "physical laws"
_there_, if only in the 'metaphysical' sense I described earlier.

The link could be anti-something. It doesn't have anything we have
here, not even a void. A vague analogy could be that it's to the
real world like the lack of a proton is to an electron (without any
of the rest of the atom involved; it's _not_ there). I don't much
like it because there's an attraction that I don't want in the
analogy. It isn't sucking at the real world, after all.

No, what I mean is that we have to step a level or two up from how
we think about the world operating. For instance, for us to live in
this world it must support the property of 'duration' of physical
entities like protons and electrons, only after that can we worry
about details like the electromagnetic interaction that allows atoms
to form and interact to make gross matter, then living matter. IOW
this universe has a time dimension, one that spans the whole of it.
For a human traveler to survive for an instant in the Other Place _it
too_ must support duration at least for that instant; it too must have
a time dimension _but_ it need not span the whole of the Other Place-
it can be locally conditional depending on a local's desire for it to
exist. That's the sort of linkage I'm talking about, not a one-to-one
correspondence between our mundane phsyical constants' values and any
putative ones there. The existence and values taken of any, all, or
none of the physical constants can be willed by the locals, but the
warp and weft of the place itself must be amenable to being made into
a livable environment for humans.

(Note: when I talk about magic I specifically mean thaumaturgy,
not theurgy.)

I'm not sure what either is. And my dictionary doesn't have either.

Oh. Theurgy means 'deity magic' and usually involves conning some
powerful entity into doing something you want done that's
inconveniently difficult using mundane methods (also includes 'selling
one's soul to the devil'). Thaumaturgy is "earth magic' (or 'matter
magic') meaning using simple things like laws of correspondence or
similarity to get the physical world to do something you want done.

So in a sense anything accomplished using what we call Engineering
is also thaumaturgy.

Basically I'm pointing out that there will be constraints of
some sort, or the locals won't be able to predictably manipulate
their environment ('make what pleases them')-

That's what you assume, but it isn't true there, because they don't
have physical laws. They might make some. Each one may make their
own in their home, different to those in the other homes.

Not what I meant. They'll know that if they want frinst a chocolate
sundae, they better not think about a scoop of dog poop.

Magic is about a kind of interaction between bits of matter

No. Magic may be that, but it doesn't have to be.

that isn't mediated by the forces involved in the mundane
"physical laws". It has its own internally consistent rules that
allow those familiar with them to predictably manipulate it just
like the other forces can be manipulated by those familiar with
their rules.

I agree there.

One more time, then I'll snip out all relevant material (I promise):
the only reason I keep harping on this is because the story requires
the human travelers to exist for a while in the Other Place, which
absolutely requires the place to be able to support them in a 3
spatial-one-time-dimension sense. Also it must support all the physics
their bodies are made of at least long enough for story-related
interesting things to happen to them, and the transportation method
has to somehow hook up to both this world and that world. Think
railroad tracks; you can't get from Boston to the Xtian Heaven via
train because that place doesn't support tracks and train stations.

And the more we talk about it, the less I want to call it magic. :)

I was thinking the same thing.

Example; in many 'real world' systems of magic, what I'm calling
the Magical Coupling Constant for elemental Iron is zero; magic
has no effect on 'cold iron'. Moving water has a greater Magical
Coupling Constant than does standing water. Living matter has a
much greater Magical Coupling Constant than does non-living
matter, and so on.

That's not very scientific; it's odd bits that don't add up to a
consistent picture, without reason or sense.

I didn't make it up, I'm just describing bits of it. Magic is
associated with the power to change things, hence is associated with
motion or the ease of motion, with warmth and with flexibility.

If I thought I was talking about an electromagnetism-type force
I'd start thinking about some sort of "magical charge" possessed
by various kinds of matter.

Doesn't fit into any of the three stories I mentioned here (I don't
want to ponder any of the beginnings I've got).

No worry, I'll keep it for later use. ;>)

Maybe you should tell me exactly how you think of magic (in
this specific case) so I can build a better bridge.

In this specific case, I think of it less and less as 'magic'. It's
more like divine powers, in that they could, in theory, make their
own universe. It's just that I don't think of them as deities. The
similarity only occured to me; some (real) people think some deity
made the universe. They could make one, in that sense. But they're
just thought-beings that exist within a nowhere and make everything
a visitor would see. If I had to put the nowhere somewhere, it would
be outside all universes, or in the 'space' between them all. But it
was there before the big bang.

In the scenario I postulated (a different physical Place with a
separate big bang) there would be no way to correlate 'before' or
'after'.

Remember that 'constants' are merely descriptors of the
interactions between different bits of various kinds of stuff.

Which don't exist there.

They do once they're created. When the beings stop thinking about
them, do they stop existing?

If interactions happen in the Other Place

Nope. Unless you count interactions of the thought-beings.

Yes, of course. Those interactions will have limitations, otherwise
one being could manipulate another despite the other's desires.

(and it would be a rather dull place if they didn't),

Don't know what makes you think that.

Because then nothing (much less anything interesting) could happen
there. What's the point in telling a story about a place nothing can
happen in?

There's _nothing_ but what the locals made. And no rules to what
they make but those they make.

Where do they get their ideas of what to make?

However, whatever forces _are_ involved will be describable _by
the locals_ in terms of constants that make sense _to them_.

There's just them.

And the stuff they make. How long does it last when they lose
interest in it?

Also, when you say "not in our dimension" I visualize a
pages-in-a-book sort of thing with each page being a world.

I imagine it right here, or rather the Magic Earth globe in the same
place as our globe.

Which reminds me of a subject further up: The only bit of science
turned up when two Farseers wondered how to find out whether there's
magic on the moon. (Their moon, of course.)

Heh. I visualize magic-users trying to design spacesuits.

...why the travelers survive; the locals 'see them
coming' and provide a suitable environmental bubble for them.

I think the 'bubbles' are already there, due to the prior visits.

What they don't know is that it also realigns large stretches
of the volume of the higher-dimensional space I described
above,

Why not realign stretches of the real world?
It may have say in early testing, producing blatantly
unacceptable side-effects.

Like bumping people elsewhere? :)
I was thinking more like producing writhing, miles-long blazing
stretches of tortured spacetime running parallel to major
highways or across the sky above major cities; the sort of thing
that isn't easy to explain away as 'swamp gas' or the planet
Venus.

Heh. I don't mind side-effects, unless you mean 'unacceptable' in a
physics sense, rather than someone not liking them.

Well, how about 'severely inconvenient'?

...Theoretical physicists have been trying
desperately to combine QM and the Relativities for most of a
century now.

I heard about that, but don't even see the problem.

Relativity only works if spacetime is continuous, but quantum
mechanics shows that it is likely itty bitty discrete chunks.

But an unlikely attempt to combine them (and tested in an
experiment) would be an acceptable means for the desired effect. But
then I think we've got the problem that I wouldn't understand the
attempt to explain it.

You and most everybody else.

Just this year a Japanese physicist has been awarded a Nobel Prize
for using some abstruse math to help explain how the
electromagnetic force and the strong and weak nuclear forces are
_not_ separate forces,

but are actually aspects of the same force- two short-range and
the other long-range.

I have no idea what short and long range refer to. I can imagine
that three events to do with parts of an atom all have to do with
the same force, which seems kind of obvious. But I just know a tiny
bit about the 'electro' part, none of the 'magnetic' and the rest.

Short-range means the forces operate between particles only over
very short (10^-15 meter, within nuclei and hence not even out to the
first electron orbital of an atom) distances; beyond that they have no
effect. Long-range means like electric and gravitational fields, they
will be felt out to infinite distances.

"electro" obviously refers to the charges on electrons and protons,
"magnetic" refers (we now know) to what you see when you wave an
electric charge around (which is why it's called 'electrodynamics').

I very much like symmetry and balance. Broken ones sound very
interesting, but as said... I don't know anything about it.

Think of it this way; things in perfect balance don't do anything
interesting. Things slightly out of balance have potential for
dramatic (therefore interesting) actions. Another favorite example of
mine is something called piezoelectricity. You know about how when
quartz crystals are squeezed in particular ways they generate electric
charges on their surfaces? It only works because the crystal lattice
is _not_ perfectly symmetrical. In crystals that are perfectly
symmetrical the effect cannot happen.

so we have to cobble one up out of Cosmogony and an off-brand of
Gravitational Engineering based on Transmission Line Theory
stolen from Electromagnetism.

That's fine.


For us, time is a line; one dimension. Now imagine it had three
dimensions, and someone were flipped from speeding along the X axis,
0-line Y axis, to speed along the X axis, 1-line Y axis. Same
direction, but no longer here. (I imagine they've got their own
three space dimensions, plus time.)

And rambling on about that, I come to think that the analogy of Z
axis applies to the new Nodeworld thing. Perhaps as a plane (X and Z
axis), or perhaps they've got the entire cube (X, Y, Z).

Does that help? :)

Yes, it does. They don't need to share any of our space or time
dimensions though they could be.

while it's easy to see the 3D space that the 2D universe and its
inhabitants are embedded in, and into which the 2D man is rotated,
visualizing someplace for a 3D person to rotate into is a lot
harder.

Not really. It's the same 'doesn't work' as the net&ball that's used
to depict bent space or whatever; it's 2D, not 3D.

You know the strings of the net merely represent the general
direction a mass will follow if it's rolling around on the net, yes?

Imagine stacking a bunch of those nets vertically, each separated by
the length of string between the knots, and add a piece of string
between each vertical pair of knots. You now have a three-dimensional
lattice of knots held together by the lengths of string; a 3D netting.
Stick a massive object in there and it effectively pulls all the
lengths of string that point directly at it, toward it; this deforms
the 3D lattice the same way as the net/ball visualization. Another
added mass will try to follow those deformed strings and will describe
geodesic curves including 'falling' toward the first object and stable
orbits just like real masses do.

In our space you have more options. You can do a rotation that
makes you look to the rest of us like a line, or you could be
'rotated' around a _planar axis_ so that others would see a 2D
cross-section. In either case much of your mass is no longer in
this Universe

Ok.

in the sense that it takes much less energy to accelerate you;

You lost me there.
OK, less force. Better now?

No, it's still talking about accelerating me. :)

Whatever is rotated.

Seriously, the more mass you want to get up to a given velocity,
the more energy you have to put into it.

I don't think it's useful to digress into that. If, for the
solution, you need a scientist who wants to accelerate something,
that's enough for me. (Words like 'velocity' give me a headache.)

Okay. But it's important that he's trying to reduce the objects'
mass, because that's why he's trying to rotate it partly out of this
(you might as well say) dimension in the first place. Reduced mass
means easier to get it to move.

I think I'll put 'inertia' into the list of words that give me a
headache. :)

Nobody really knows, but Ernst Mach suggested it was the
gravitational attraction of all the other masses in the universe,
pulling equally from all directions. If that's so, and you can
rotate an object so that most of it is no longer in this space and
thus no longer subject to that pull, its inertia nearly completely
vanishes. A battleship would be as easy to move as a dust mote.

Ok, that makes sense.

One more whack on that nail; force is formally measured in units
called Newtons, and one Newton is about how much you have to apply to
a full cup of coffee to get it from a table to your mouth.

Obviously, if you empty the cup it takes less force to raise it;
suppose you could remove most of the coffee's inertia witout having to
pour it out of the cup? Then it would be as easy to raise to your
mouth as an empty cup. So what, you ask? So it would be as easy to get
a huge bomber (with most of its mass reduced away) over an enemy city
as a tiny private airplane, or to get a seventy-ton tank (with most of
its mass reduced away) across a battlefield as it would a bicycle.

Ok, so to use your words, we rotate them along all three axis, so
that there's nothing left.

Bingo! Where'd it all go? The Other Place, of course.

But basically I just don't like the idea that anything is left.
Just an intermediate step. If you like, imagine rotating a
person around a point on their 'edge' (in the case of a 2D
person, for a 3D person it's be a point on their skin)- the whole
body rotates out of their normal space that way. Imagine 2D
people as stickers attached to their space, and grasping their
edge and peeling them up off their space. Now imagine doing that
to a 3D person. Personally I find the rotation less...
disturbing.

With a 3D person, you lack the flat surface of a sticker, and that's
where the analogy falls flat.

That's because you're 3D. Can you imagine a 4D person peeling you
out of this universe?

I just hoped the axis would be something other than one of the
three spacial dimensions, or time. I was hoping for something
else.
Sorry, geometry is what it is.

So what else is there? (With geometry not producing fitting
analogies.)

There really isn't any, except extremely abstract mathematical
theories that suggest that the 3D world we see doesn't really exist;
it's an illusion projected down out of a more complex space that
contains our universe. I do not understand that sort of thing so I
won't try to explain it.

Seriously, look up _Flatland_
I'll ask in the library, perhaps we're lucky. But so far I don't
quite know what it's supposed to help click into place.
The whole rotation thing.

I know what you mean, it's just that I don't like the analogy; it
doesn't do what I imagine.

It gets your characters out of this spacetime...

Everything has rules and restrictions. If it doesn't, it isn't
predictable,

The idea that it has rules and restrictions, or just that
predictable matters in any way, is incompatible with the world I
have in mind.

and is therefore not useful.

Don't know why you say that. Having to be 'useful' is incompatible,
too. The whole sentence lives in a different dimension than how I
think about it.

I mean useful to the critters that live there so they can
predictably manipulate their environment, and useful in that you can
tell a story about it without every sentence having to contain a deus
ex machina.

...I don't want it to be just another
physical interaction. If it were that, it wouldn't be magic, but
just another physical interaction.
So what?

It's not magic. You know, something magical, that by its very
definition isn't explainable by physical laws.

I don't think of that definition automatically.

What do you think magic is?

Something that's outside physical laws.

No, that's what gods do.

If it can affect physical matter in a predictable fashion, then
it's a physical interaction, period.

Don't know where you get the idea. My whole point is that it's a
magical interaction. Something you wouldn't get with physics.

That's what gods do.

In the S&E, a Summer Priest (Priest is one of the two male genders)
can draw dryness out of plants, and it doesn't involve watering
them. A Winter Warrior (Warrior is one of the two neutral genders)
would keep a brew hot by keeping the cold out, not by heating or
insulating it. And up there I already mentioned Night people; a
Night Lord (for example; Lord is the other male gender) can become
part of the night. A Night Priest can enter others' dreams, and
bring others into them, and manipulate them (to deal with memories
and such).

Nothing physical in that.

Of course there is, just not _our_ physics. I can see potential for
all sorts of correspondences and proportionalities in what you wrote.

But we're digressing.

I wouldn't call it 'just' another one though.

Anything explainable by physical laws is just another physical
aspect, nothing magical.

Allow me to quote Arthur C. Clarke: "Any sufficiently advanced
technology is indistinguishable from magic".

And please don't tell me you don't know who he is.

Talking about staying sane. I wonder what other reactions folks
could have to arriving there out of nowhere. (So far I've only
got one, one similar to how I imagine I'd react.) But I guess
I'll find some more once I get to the viewpoints.
The best at adapting to new environments, or rather to radical
changes in their environments, are the young. They are not so
emotionally invested in the old one.

I'm more wondering about the initial reaction, those of adults.

Lots of screaming, I'd imagine. After that, it depends what the
locals do.

...transmission line theory...

So far so well. (I just don't know where the 'transmission line'
enters.)

It's basically any bits that connect the generator to the load.

nor passing it on to the load.

Not sure what a load is.

The generator generates power. The load dissipates it (some as
radiated electromagnetic waves, some as heat).

This is a "resonator". If you build it just right then cut it in
half, you get a structure that can actually radiate the power into
empty space; this is an "antenna" and is obviously a resonant
structure as well.

I'm lost here. Cut in half? Empty space (what space?)?

Yep, cut it in half. Ever seen microwave waveguides? They're
basically different shapes of pipe that guide electromagnetic fields
within the hollow space. A cavity resonator for microwaves would be a
slightly larger section of pipe capped at both ends, connected to the
guide via a 'window' cut in the side of the cavity. Cut the cavity in
half and it will 'leak' or radiate some of the waves fed into it from
the waveguide; that basically makes it an antenna (the part not
radiated gets reflected back into the guide). If you do some subtle
shaping to it as well (make it sort of pyramid-shaped) and cut it at
just the right place, it radiates much better.

Empty space as in outside the waveguide system- out to the edges of
the universe (electromagnetism = infinite range, remember?).

Your scientist could have built a gravitational-wave resonator
system that stores energy in the form of an _alternating_
gravitational field rather than a static field like what leads
to wormholes.

Sounds interesting, but not very possible. (To me, simple and
ignorant as I am, it sounds like something that stores gravity,
That's exactly what it would do.

Cool.

which sounds very odd. Never mind what effect that may have, and
why isn't anyone using it for anti-gravity devices?)
Because gravity is an astoundingly feeble force. It takes the
entire three sextillion (3 x 10 ^21) kilogram mass of the planet
Earth to keep you stuck to its surface; yet, we pathetically weak
bags of damp protein can, when properly trained, leap twice our
body length away from its surface.

Heh.

Equally, it would take the entire mass of another Earth
hovering just overhead to lift you off the surface via raw
gravity. That wouldn't be very practical, would it?

Right.

So I needed some way to 'store' gravity in order to get enough of
it in one place to bend spacetime severely enough to create the
bridge bubbles (or whatever you wind up calling it..

I kind of lost the connection to how these bubbles transport anyone
anywhere.

To get them out of this spacetime, rip out the piece of it
containing them, wad it up, then throw it in a direction we can't see.
Eventually it whacks into the Other Place and unwraps itself spilling
the people out.

(BTW some people will tell you that what he generated wasn't
'really' gravitational waves according to accepted theory, and
they're right. However I'll remind you that the gravitational
waves accepted theory predicts have not been seen.)

So what did he produce?
Standard theory predicts free-flying gravitational quanta
called 'gravitons',

Why do they always want something flying around? :) (Somehow,
something flying around doesn't match my idea of gravity.)

They're just the free-flying form of ordinarily static gravity
fields, the same way that light photons are the free-flying forms of
ordinary static electric and magnetic fields.

(Though the idea that gravity has waves doesn't ring any better than
it having stuff flying around. Basically, it goes in the wrong
direction; it leaves the source rather than attracting something.)

Gravity waves aren't directly involved in ordinary gravitational
attraction any more than light photons are involved in the
electrostatic attraction between electrons and photons or the
attraction between magnets. There's a connection but did you want
teriyaki or sweet-and-sour glaze?

So the hardware will look nothing like any scientific hardware
you're likely to have ever seen; as dense as possible masses
moving very quickly along programmable paths, all focused on a
small space.

Wanting some analogue I can understand, is this (very vaguely)
like turning a spoon in a coffee mug, but instead of having the
coffee swap around and mixed, you keep the 'waves' (in a coffee
mug that's of course just waves like would be seen in a pond
when throwing a stone in)? In other words, the effect? And not
the turning of the spoon is what matters (the movement), but the
moved matter? (All I know about matter and gravity is that
matter attracts other matter, more the more there is. So if
dense matter is moved, it should have some effect.)
Yes. The waves will insistently yank nearby matter back and
forth like the waves from your spoon would cause another spoon
dipped into the coffee to wave back and forth in sympathy to your
twisting/ stirring motion.

Cool.

Mind you this works because the waves are bending spacetime itself.

If the waves from several sources are made to converge on an
object with proper synchronization _and_ if they are not strictly
3D as many now assume, then whatever is in the volume of
convergence can be 'twisted' away...

That they're not strictly 3D sounds interesting. But the connection
to 'twisting' away into other dimensions evades me.

Phrase it any way you like. A chunk of spacetime containing some
people is torn from this universe, and tossed into another.

In more popular fiction, our collective inability to visualize
in more than three dimensions goes at least back to H. P.
Lovecraft. He did a lot with suggestions of spacetimes just a
little different from ours, but different enough to induce
raving insanity when glimpsed.

:)

Which I find hard to believe. If nothing else, the eye and
brain, used to 3D, would just pattern what it sees into
something it can understand.
And likely get it completely, probably dangerously, wrong. Ever
seen those sculpted-face wallhangings that seem to follow you as
you move around a room? Know how they work?

No. I know the effect from pictures, and there it's just that the
eyes look directly into the 'camera' (right at the painter).

Then I'm about to give it away. Usually you aren't allowed to get
close enough to examine them, but they're really sculpted in reverse
relief; think taking a mold of your face with plaster and mounting it
in a frame with the hollow bit facing out. When you stand directly in
front of it it seems to be looking straight at you of course. Move to
your left say, and it seems to turn to its right to follow you, the
whole face, not just the eyes. It's a trick of perception caused by
the inverted geometry of the sculpture. The perspective looks
backwards from what it really is.

I first saw the effect as a child at Disneyland many years ago and
was strongly creeped out by it. It made some of the other kids cry.

(What with you trying to apply possible constants to the other
world.)
For the locals to survive there it must make some kind of sense
they can understand;

That's an assumption based on the rules of the real world. The rules
that don't exist there. :)

The thing is that 'must make some kind of sense they can understand'
doesn't apply because there's nothing but what they make. All that's
there is their doing. They understand how they make it, but that
isn't the same, since without them making anything, there's
absolutely nothing but their thoughts. They even make whatever rules
they fancy, which 'next door' might be completely different.

I still don't quite see how they get ideas of what to make; do they
idly view other universes between making stuff up, or what?

Anyway, I think the graviton-generator array ought to do the trick.
It's fairly well-grounded in current theory, and the bit about tossing
them out of this spacetime into a 'sister' universe that is nothing
like this one is not completely implausible according to current
scientific speculation/hypotheses, if not actual theory- you can toss
in murky references to 'quantum loop gravity' and 'topological
geometrodynamics' which will get you past most readers. The power
levels involved will be humongous but the array _is_ a storage
structure, so maybe a private (military) nuclear power plant can feed
it for a week before each incident.


Mark L. Fergerson
.