I know it's a random subject but bear with me. This is a little thought experiment on the subject of time travel and, if it were miraculously invented today, would be totally pointless and deadly, at least for humans.

First of all, let's look at what I mean by "time travel". Basically, my definition is that it is travel forwards of backwards in the fourth dimension of time by popping out of space-time in one temporal location and popping back in another. i.e. there is no spacial movement. This assumes that there is actually a fundamental space reference frame within the Universe which would probably change size and shape caused inflation and local gravitational field effects.

So, why do I postulate that it would be pointless today?

Well, let's think about this. We are not stationary. We have velocity relative to everything except the few things around us which happen to be enjoying the same small area as we are. Even objects you can see a few feet away from you have a very slightly different trajectory to you because of the curvature of the Earth and its spin and the orbit of the planet around the Sun and also the orbit of the Solar System around the galaxy. So, if you were to just pop out of space-time just for a few minutes you'd find yourself either high in the sky, possibly even in space, travelling in an awkward direction or, even worse, suddenly underground squished by the planet you've hit at a couple of thousand miles per hour. Ooops! Paraphrasing Douglas Adams, not a naturally tenable position for a human.

This means, of course, that before you can use your new time-travel machine first you need to build yourself a nice inter-planetary capable space craft. At least you'd not have to worry about getting off the planet but you would have to make sure that your time jump was long enough to make sure nothing was in the way when you popped back into reality.

Well, this would be fine as long as you had a decent inter-planetary drive and enough time to travel back to Earth. The problem comes when you want to travel for more than just a few hours, or maybe days. You see, the further you travel backwards or forwards in time the further you will be from Earth when you arrive. After a few days you'll be finding yourself popping back into existence outside the Solar System so you'll need not just a fast inter-planetary ship but an inter-stellar one. If a fast inter-planetary craft is hard to come by at the moment then a nice inter-stellar one is even rarer.

Of course, there are other problems when you start moving very far from where you began, the most notable of which would be the change in the distortion of space-time due to gravitational field differences. Goodness knows what the effect would be when popping out of the high gravitational field distortion close to the Sun, Moon and Earth and then popping into a far "flatter" field in inter-stellar space. Would the instant change in your own space-time bubble be detrimental to your survival or physical integrity? I don't know. Of course, this effect would be amplified greatly if you made large time jumps as space-time itself would have changed size due to the expansion of the Universe.

Overall then, time travel, other than the usual one second per second forward, is probably not a good idea, and likely to be a tad unhealthy at that. It's probably why you've not met any time travellers yet.

It's not been a good week for my car. Sometime on Wednesday, whilst it was sitting on my drive, a good 10ft (3m) from the entrance it was hit by another vehicle. It was little more than a rub but it has caused some paint damage and also subtle denting to the rear, driver's side wheel arch and passenger door. This is a right pain.

From the paint left behind from the other vehicle and the other evidence it looks like it was a dark blue (the same sort of colour as "Home Delivery Network" use on their vans) and the height of the bumper was that of a van. From the angle of the impact it seems that the vehicle was using the wide driveway as a turning place.

The worst thing about it all is that he/she didn't stop and leave their details. Still, it's definitely not worth claiming on the insurance as for the next five years I'd be paying far more than any potential repair cost, even though there is no way that it could have been my fault. Such is the way that insurance companies gauge risk.

As I said, what a pain.

Yesterday was the last day of the move of the University of Oxford Department of Earth Sciences from the building(s) it's occupied since 1948 to the new building just around the corner. (The chemistry labs are still situated there until November but the building is now technically "owned" by Chemistry.)

This was the end of an era for me as well. I was the first person to move into the extension in late 1992, getting key number 139, and my office was one of the last to get moved out as well. So, I've certainly been the longest resident. Yesterday I handed that key back for the very last time, after having it in my pocket continuously for 18 years almost to the day. The end of another era.

The new building is very different from the old one. It's light and airy but also more "corporate" and soulless. One real benefit is, however, that the common room is on the roof and last night, at the weekly Happy Hour, it was very pleasant sitting on a sofa with only the spot lights switched on watching the nearly full Moon climb above Headington Hill intermittently shrouded by scudding, silver-rimmed clouds and the sky changing from a light turquoise to a dusty dark blue over the period of an hour or so.

Still, the only constant in life is change and I can see that the new building *IS* an improvement in many ways from the old one. There are things the old building had which were better, such as a larger library, but on the whole there are fewer of those than than the new one's advantages. Let's just see how things progress...

 

Recently, with the cut in funding and subsequent turning off of speed cameras in Oxfordshire there has been a great deal of chatter about how this will increase the numbers of deaths on the roads. Today had the local speed camera organisation, "Thames Valley's Safer Road Partnership", spouting statistically unsustainable statistics about how many people were now breaking the speed limit as opposed to when the cameras were operational. (Notably, they didn't say by how much the speed limit was being broken by. Also, one location is notorious for chavish lads driving recklessly, which wouldn't be halted by the camera.) www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-10929488

Two days ago we had another pressure group and a number of police chief constables put their oar in: www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10911436. One basically saying that there would be carmogedden and the other blaming the middle classes for speeding "until one of their family got killed." That second one is laughable if you've ever lived anywhere close to a "working class" neighbourhood.

The trouble with all this spin and hoo-hah is that the evidence for speed being the main killer on the roads is just not there. In 2008 only 14% of road accidents had speed as a contributory factor. www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/datatablespublications/accidents/casualtiesgbar/rrcgb2008 Note that this is ALL accidents reported to the police and not just lethal ones. So, speed cameras, even if they were 100% effective, would not help in 86% of accidents.

So, now we know that speed is not as high a risk as the quangos who run the cameras and the police forces (who don't want to spend money on traffic enforcement officers) would make out, do cameras actually help at all?

Well, in some locations I'm sure that they do. In most locations, however, they're more of a hazard than a help. How many times have you seen a car brake heavily (usually from a speed under the speed limit already) to pass a speed camera? I've seen it quite a number of times, causing the cars behind to have to make sudden braking maneuvers themselves. i.e. increasing the risk of an accident. Also, forcing drivers to be more concerned about the absolute speed of their vehicle and watching the speedo more and more decreases the time they have to concentrate on other road hazards or taking note of what an appropriate speed for the situation might be, again increasing the risk of an accident.

If you add to this the congestive effect of cars slowing to well below the speed limit to pass the cameras and, on a road close to capacity, causing the generation of a solitary wave of congestion to pass back along the queue causing a complete jam.

What about the other "safety" features imposed by local authorities on the roads in the name of safety?

Well, there are the extensive 50 mph speed limits which seem to encompass huge swathes of the A road network. It seems that the default reaction when there are an above average number of accidents on a road is to restrict the speed limit by a mere 10 mph. The fallacy here is that doing so will automatically cut incidents.

Let's break down the logic using a specific example, the A420 between Oxford and Swindon. There are a few places where the junctions are relatively blind and would benefit from the traffic being slowed. It could be said that in these areas 50 mph is still way too high and a 40 mph limit would be more appropriate in the close vicinity of the junction. However, for most of the road the national speed limit of 60 mph is not a dangerous speed (under good road conditions). The majority of fatal accidents on the road, however, are from drivers who have been reckless and have been speeding, losing control of their vehicle on bends. Note: these people are already breaking the speed limit.

So, the knee-jerk reaction has been to decrease the speed limit on about two-thirds of the whole length of road to 50 mph. Firstly, his will not help to greatly reduce the danger on the risky junctions as the time to see a vehicle from the junction before turning out onto the road has not decreased by much. Secondly, those who caused accidents by speeding recklessly will still ignore the speed limit. (And no, more speed cameras wouldn't help.)

In other words, the responsible majority have been hugely inconvenienced and no real good has come from it other than to allow the councils to say that they're doing something.

Of course, I am talking heresy. Tut-tut. The slogan says, "Speed kills!" but actually it doesn't. Changing the slogan to "Inappropriate speed is highly risky" wouldn't go down well as it's not punchy enough. Of course, it's not the speed which kills ultimately, it's the rapid deceleration.

Just my two-penny's worth...

Well, this last weekend was a Bank Holiday and my parents had come up from Cornwall to see me. Unfortunately I managed to pick up a rather nasty flu virus which started to show itself the evening they arrived, last Thursday.

Initially I merely thought it a minor cough and it wasn't really until Saturday morning that it really hit me. From then on, until today really, I spent most of my time in bed. Not a great way to entertain my Mum and Dad. Not only this but I've also managed to pass on the infection to my Dad.

So, a Bank Holiday to forget really.

Well, it seems as if Summer has arrived early. However, if the last three years are anything to go by, May will be the warmest month and so this IS the Summer. Make the most of it!

Well, after some advice from Alec Muffett I've got WordPress configured in a manner which is reasonable, so I can release it to the world.

I must admit that adding a WYSIWYG editor for posting has made the whole thing a far more pleasant experience.

There are a few things I thing I'll change but on the whole the simple, minimalist theme I've chosen fits in well with the minimalist home page I have.

“And so it begins.” Immortal words.

I’ve set this blog up mostly so as to document my up-coming sponsored kilt wearing event.

First of all, I’ve got to work out a number of details such as modifying WordPress so as to make it look presentable. I’ve also got to order four kilts and the accessories such as a pin or two, sporan, sporan chain, belt etc.