Back to the Future

In honor of Back to the Future Day (October 21, 2015, the day in the future that Doc, Marty & Jennifer travel to in Back to the Future Part II), I though I would share this.

In February 2000, I found the script for the movie Back to the Future on the internet, and decided to adapt it into something my friends and I could film. This was significant as I had recently become obsessed with Back to the Future, and had realized that the year 2000 was halfway between 1985 (the “present” in the movies) and 2015 (the “future” in the movies. The story was set in my hometown of Rainier, Oregon in the year 2015, and the DeLorean was replaced by a Ford Tempo, because that’s what I had. To reduce the cast to a minimum, Marty’s girlfriend Jennifer was Doc’s daughter, and once in the past (1995) Marty had to help Doc meet his wife, Clara. If necessary, Jennifer and Clara could have been played by the same person.

Ford Tempo Time Machine

We never actually made the movie. We did convert the Ford Tempo into a time machine that summer (the summer after our senior year of high school), but then the Tempo was totaled in a rear-end accident, and by the time it was replaced the summer was almost over.

Why the movie was never made

Anyway, here is my adapted script. Enjoy!

Back to the Future

by Robert West

Based on “Back to the Future” by Robert Zemekis & Bob Gale

Scene 1:

Marty opens door to Doc’s house. He drops the key under the mat and walks in.

Marty: Hey, Doc? Doc. Hello, anybody home? (shuts the door) Jennifer? Is anybody here? (sees clocks at 6:58) Whoa, I got here early. Hey, Doc? What's going on? (telephone rings. Marty answers it) Yo.

Doc: Marty, is that you?

Marty: Hey, hey, Doc, where are you?

Doc: Thank god I found you. Listen, can you meet me at the lower parking lot of the Briarcliff Reform School tonight at 1:15? I've made a major breakthrough, I'll need your assistance.

Marty: Wait a minute, wait a minute. 1:15 in the morning?

Doc: Yeah.

Marty: What's going on? Where are you?

Doc: Working. Don't forget, now, 1:15 a.m., Briarcliff Reform School. (clocks strike 7:00) Are those my clocks chiming in?

Marty: Yeah, it's 7:00.

Doc: They're late. My experiment worked. They're all exactly fourty-five minutes slow.

Marty: Wait a minute. Wait a minute, Doc. Are you telling me that it's 7:45?

Doc: Precisely.

Marty: Damn. I'm gonna be late for work.

Marty hangs up the phone and goes outside. He gets into his car and drives off.

Scene 2:

Marty gets to work.

Marty: Hey, Jennifer.

Jennifer: Hi, Marty.

Marty: Jennifer, do you know what Doc’s working on?

Jennifer: I never know anything about my dad’s experiments. He’s been really busy with this one though.

Marty: You know, I’d really like to take you out on a date.

Jennifer: I know, and I’d really like that, but you know Dad won’t let me go out with you.

Marty: I don’t understand that. I help him with all his experiments. He knows he can trust me.

Jennifer: I think he just wants to make sure I don’t end up like Mom. He blames himself for her being killed in that car wreck. He thinks things would have been different if he had been with her. In fact, tonight will be the tenth anniversary of her death.

Marty: I wonder if what he’s doing tonight has anything to do with that.

Jennifer: What?

Marty: Doc wants me to meet him at the reform school at 1:15 in the morning.

Jennifer: That’s what time my mom died.

Marty: Wierd.

Scene 3:

Doc and Jennifer are having dinner at their house.

Jennifer: Dad, what are you and Marty doing tonight?

Doc: Just an experiment.

Jennifer: What kind of experiment?

Doc: Just an experiment I’ve been planning for a while.

Jennifer: Why are you doing it at the same time Mom died?

Doc: It’s really just a coincidence. But if this experiment works, our lives will change.

Scene 4:

Marty is asleep at his house. The telephone rings. Marty answers it.

Marty: Hello.

Doc: Marty, you didn't fall asleep, did you?

Marty: Uh Doc, uh no. No, don't be silly.

Doc: Listen, this is very important, I forgot my digital recorder, could you stop by my place and pick it up on your way to the school?

Marty: Um, yeah, I'm on my way.

Marty hangs up the phone and gets up.

Marty’s car goes by sign for “Genesis Nuclear Waste Reclamation Plant.”

Marty’s car comes into the school.

Scene 5:

Marty’s car stops in parking lot. The lot is empty except for an “energy converter.” Marty gets out with the “digital recorder” and looks around. He checks his watch.

The Tempo comes around a corner at the other end of the lot. It comes toward Marty and stops right in front of him. Doc gets out.

Marty: Doc

Doc: Marty, you made it.

Marty: Yeah.

Doc: Welcome to my latest experiment. It's the big one; the one I've been waiting for for years.

Marty: Um, well it's a Ford Tempo, right?

Doc: Bare with me, Marty, all of your questions will be answered. (he points to the recorder) Action.

Marty: Doc, is that a de-

Doc: Never mind that now, never mind that now.

Marty raises the recorder.

Marty: Alright, I'm ready.

Doc: Good evening, I'm Doctor Emmett Brown. I'm standing on the lower parking lot of Briarcliff Reform School. It's Saturday morning, October 26, 2015, 1:18 a.m. and this is temporal experiment number one.

Doc holds up a watch and points to a clock in the Tempo.

Marty: (getting a better view) Whoa, whoa, okay.

Doc: Please note that the car's clock is in complete synchronization with my control watch.

Marty: Right check, Doc.

Doc takes out a remote control and points it at the Tempo.

Marty: You have that thing hooked up to the car?

The Tempo starts. It turns around, races to the other end of the parking lot, and turns around again.

Doc: Watch this. Not me, the car, the car. If my calculations are correct, when this baby hits forty-eight miles per hour, you’re gonna see some serious shit.

The Tempo starts coming back toward them.

Doc: Watch this, watch this.

The Tempo disappears right in front of them.

Doc: Ha, what did I tell you, forty-eight miles per hour. The temporal displacement occurred at exactly 1:20 a.m. and zero seconds.

Marty: Jesus Christ, Doc. Jesus Christ, Doc, you disintegrated the car.

Doc: Calm down, Marty, I didn't disintegrate anything. The molecular structure of the car is still completely intact.

Marty: Then where the hell is it?

Doc: The more appropriate question is: “When the hell is it?” You see, I sent it into the future. One minute into the future to be exact. And at exactly 1:21 a.m. and zero seconds we should catch up with it.

Marty: Wait a minute, wait a minute, Doc, are you telling me that you built a time machine out of a Tempo.

Doc: Well I spent all my money trying to get this thing to work. The Tempo was the best car I could afford. Besides- look out.

The Tempo reappears and comes to a stop. Doc opens the door.

Doc: Ha. The car's clock is exactly one minute behind mine and still ticking. It skipped over that minute to instantly arrive at this moment in time. Come here, I'll show you how it works. (Marty comes over with the recorder and Doc gets in) First, you turn the time circuits on. (He turns them on) This readout tells you where you're going. You input the destination time on this keypad. Say, you wanna see the signing of the declaration of independence, (Doc inputs date) or witness the birth or Christ. (Doc inputs another date) Here's a red-letter date in history, (Doc inputs another date) November 5, 1995. Yes, of course, November 5, 1995.

Marty: What, I don't get it. What happened?

Doc: That was the day I met my wife, Clara. I remember it vividly. I was in town buying some parts for my newest invention when I saw her. She was the most beautiful woman I had ever seen and I knew, before I even spoke to her, that I would marry her one day.

Doc pulls out a picture and hands it to Marty.

Marty: Wow. She looks just like Jennifer. So, what happened?

Doc: I walked up to her and introduced myself. I ended up asking her to dinner. We kissed for the first time that very night. (sighs) Now she’s gone, killed in a car crash ten years ago today. Since then, I’ve devoted my life to creating this. (points to flux capacitor) This is what makes time travel possible. The flux capacitor.

Marty: The flux capacitor.

Doc: It's taken me almost ten years and my entire family fortune to realize this day. (he gets out) My god has it been that long. Things have certainly changed around here. The government still provided public schools for everyone back then. It’s too bad you and Jennifer couldn’t have benefitted from that.

Marty: This is uh, this is heavy duty, Doc, this is great. Uh, does it run on regular unleaded gasoline?

Doc: No, this sucker's electrical. But I need an energy converter to generate the 50000 volts that I need to recharge the flux capacitor from any place or any time if there’s no electricity nearby.

Marty: Doc, civilians can’t buy energy converters. Did you rip that off?

Doc: Of course, from an anarchist. He wanted me to turn it into something that could overload the power plant, so I took his energy converter and in turn gave him a phony casing full of used Intel computer parts.

Marty: Jesus.

Doc plugs the energy converter into the car and turns in on for a moment, then turns it back off again and unplugs it.

Doc: Don't you lose those chips now, we'll need a record. Roll ‘em. I, Doctor Emmett Brown, am about to embark on an historic journey. Wait a minute, what am I thinking? I almost forgot to bring the energy converter. How did I ever expect to get back, one charge, one trip. I must be out of my mind.

Another car enters the parking lot.

Doc: Oh my god, he found me, I don't know how but he found me. Run for it, Marty.

Marty: Who, who?

Doc: Who do you think, the anarchist.

Driver points a laser gun out the window.

Marty: Holy shit.

Driver shoots Doc.

Marty: No! Bastard!

Driver points laser gun at Marty. Marty dives into the Tempo and tries to drive off. Anarchist follows him. Marty drives toward exit.

Tempo breaks through closed gates. Sign reads, “Rainier High School.”

Marty: That was close.

Tempo stops suddenly. Marty gets out and looks at sign that reads “Genesis Indoor Sports Center: Opening Soon.”

Marty: What the hell?

Marty gets back in the car and looks at readout.

Marty: Alright, alright, okay McFly, get a grip on yourself. All I have to do is set it to 2015 (he enters date on keypad) and get up to forty-eight and everything’ll be fine.

Tempo drives down the road.

Marty: Let’s try that again.

Tempo goes back the other way.

Marty: This is nuts. I’ve gotta find Doc.

Scene 6:

Early morning: Tempo drives up to Doc’s house. Marty gets out and goes up to the door. He knocks. Doc answers the door with “mind-reading helmet” on.

Marty: Doc?

Doc: Don't say a word.

Marty: Doc.

Doc pulls him in and shuts the door.

Doc: I don't wanna know your name. I don't wanna know anything about you.

Marty: Listen, Doc.

Doc: Quiet.

Marty: Doc, Doc, it's me, Marty.

Doc: Don't tell me anything.

Marty: Doc, you gotta help-

Doc sticks electrode to Marty’s head.

Doc: Quiet, quiet. I'm gonna read your thoughts. Let's see now, you've come from a great distance?

Marty: Yeah, exactly.

Doc: Don't tell me. Uh, you want me to buy a subscription to the Daily News?

Marty: No.

Doc: Not a word, not a word, not a word now. Quiet, uh, donations, you want me to make a donation to the Salvation Army?

Marty pulls off the electrode.

Marty: Doc, I'm from the future. I came here in a time machine that you invented. Now, I need your help to get back to the year 2015.

Doc: My god, do you know what this means? It means that this damn thing doesn't work at all.

Doc takes off the helmet.

Marty: Doc, you gotta help me. You were the only one who knows how your time machine works.

Doc: Time machine, I haven't invented any time machine.

Marty: Okay, alright, I'll prove it to you. Look at my driver's license, expires 2017. Look at my birthday, for crying out load I haven't even been born yet. I'm telling the truth, Doc, you gotta believe me.

Doc: So tell me, future boy, who's president of the United States in 2015?

Marty: Jesse Ventura.

Doc: Jesse Ventura, the wrestler? Then who's vice president, Steve Austin? (starts pushing Marty toward the door) I suppose Tonya Harding is the first lady.

Marty: Whoa, wait, Doc.

Doc: And Michael Jordan is secretary of the Treasury.

Marty: Look, you gotta listen to me.

Doc: I’ve had enough practical jokes for one evening. Good night, future boy.

Doc pushes Marty out the door and starts to close it, then notices the Tempo.

Doc: Great scott.

Marty: I told you so. It got me here, but I can’t get it to take me back.

Doc: So, I finally invent something that works. 

Marty: Bet your ass it works.

Doc: Well, now we gotta find out what’s wrong and fix it. We've gotta get you home.

Scene 7:

Marty has the digital recorder hooked up to Doc’s TV and is working on it. Doc is watching him. Marty gets it to work.

Marty: Okay Doc, this is it.

TV Doc: Good evening, I'm Doctor Emmett Brown. I'm standing on the lower parking lot of-

Doc: Why that's me, look at me, I'm an old man. (Marty hits fast forward) Thank god I still got my hair.

Marty: Whoa, this is it, this is the part coming up, Doc. (Marty stops fast forward)

TV Doc: No, this sucker's electrical. But I need an energy converter to generate the 50000 volts I need to-

Doc: What did I just say?

Marty rewinds, then plays it again.

TV Doc: No, this sucker's electrical. But I need an energy converter to generate the 50000 volts that I need to recharge the flux capacitor-

Doc: Great scott. No wonder the car won’t take you back to the future. It doesn’t have enough power to. Where’s this energy converter?

Marty: (smacks his forehead) I left it in the future.

Doc: Well then, we need an energy source to recharge the car. The easiest way to get 50000 volts is from overhead wires.

Marty: So, we just hook the car up to the wires?

Doc: No. If we leave the car hooked up for very long, we could overload the electrical system. It has to be a momentary contact. We have to find a place where you can get the time machine up to speed and then come into contact with the electricity. It’ll take a little time to get things set up. Marty, tonight, we’re sending you back to the future.

Marty: Okay, alright, tonight’s good. I could spend a day in 1995. I could hang out, you could show me around.

Doc: Marty, that's completely out of the question, you must not leave this house. you must not see anybody or talk to anybody. Anything you do could have serious repercussions on future events. Do you understand?

Marty: Yeah, sure, okay.

Doc: Marty, you interacted with anybody else today, besides me?

Marty: No, Doc, Wait a minute, Doc, You have to go into town today.

Doc: Town? What for?

Marty: You just do.

Doc: Marty, if we’re going to send you back to the future tonight, I have to work on getting things set up.

Marty: Doc, you’re supposed to meet your wife today.

Doc: My wife?

Marty: Yeah Doc. Your future wife. I mean, the whole reason you built the time machine was to go back in time to keep her from being killed in that car wreck.

Doc: Shhh. Don’t tell me any more. I know too much already. Great scott, Marty, you’re right. I do have to go into town today. If I don’t meet her, I may never build the time machine. Do you know what she looks like?

Marty: Yeah, Doc, you gave me a picture. (Marty takes out the picture and looks at it) What the hell?

Doc: What is it?

Marty: She’s gone. She’s not in the picture.

Doc: (looks at the picture) Of course. If we never meet, this picture will never be taken. Marty, you’ll have to come into town with me and point her out. If I never meet her, you can’t go back to the future.

Scene 8:

Doc and Marty are in town looking for Clara.

Doc: Where is she, Marty?

Marty: I don’t know, Doc.

Doc looks around.

Doc: Wow.

Marty: What is it, Doc?

Doc: I don’t know who I’m supposed to marry, but there’s just something about her. She’s the most beautiful woman I’ve ever seen.

Marty: Doc, that’s her. Wow, she really does look just like Jennifer.

Doc: Who’s Jennifer?

Marty: She’s your daughter, Doc.

Doc: My daughter. Great scott. Alright Marty, what do I do?

Marty: Just go up to her and introduce yourself.

Doc: Just like that?

Marty: Yeah.

Doc: Alright. (he walks over to Clara) Hello.

Clara: (looks up and smiles) Hello.

Doc: How are you today?

Clara: Pretty good. Thanks.

Doc: You know, I’ve never seen you around town before. Did you just move here?

Clara: Yeah, just the other day.

Doc: Welcome to Rainier. My name’s Emmett Brown.

Clara: I’m Clara. Clara Clayton.

Doc: It’s a pleasure to meet you, Clara.

Clara: It’s nice to meet you too, Emmett.

Doc: Well, I guess we’ll be seeing each other around town.

Clara: Yeah, we probably will.

Doc: Well, goodbye.

Clara: Bye.

Clara starts walking away. She looks back over her shoulder as she goes. Doc goes back to Marty.

Doc: Well, how did I do?

Marty: You did great Doc. (he looks at the picture) Wait a minute, she’s still gone.

Doc: What? Why’s that? I met her. She obviously likes me.

Marty: (snaps his fingers) Doc, now I remember. You’re supposed to ask her out to dinner tonight. That’s where the two of you kiss for the first time.

Doc: Why didn’t you tell me that? I would have in a heartbeat.

Marty: Well, come on Doc. If we can find her you still can.

Scene 9:

Clara is in a store shopping. Doc and Marty walk in and see her.

Marty: Alright Doc, there she is. Just go up to her and ask her to dinner tonight.

Doc: Right. (he walks over to her) Hello again.

Clara: (smiles) Hi.

Doc: Clara, this may sound a little forward, but I was wondering if you’d like to join me for dinner tonight.

Clara: Sure. I’d love to.

Doc: Great. I’ll meet you at six, at the restaurant across the street.

Clara: Okay.

Doc: Well, I’ll see you then.

Clara: Yeah.

Doc: Bye.

Clara: Bye.

Doc walks back to Marty.

Doc: Well?

Marty: Good job, Doc.

Marty takes out the picture. As he looks at it, Clara walks by to leave the store. She smiles at Doc. Doc smiles back. Clara leaves.

Marty: Wait a minute, Doc. She’s still not in the picture.

Doc: You said we’re supposed to kiss tonight. Maybe that has to happen before she’ll reappear.

Marty: I hope you’re right Doc.

Scene 10:

Marty and Doc are setting things up to send Marty back to the future. The Tempo is covered with a blue tarp.

Doc: Alright, let’s go over the plan for sending you home. We’ve run some industrial strength electrical cable between these two posts and suspended it across the road. Meanwhile, we’ve out-fitted the car with this big pole and hook which runs directly into the flux capacitor. At the calculated moment, you start off from down the road driving toward the cable accelerating to forty-eight miles per hour. I’ve hooked up a timer to the cable. It will electrify the cable at the same time you reach it, sending the necessary 50000 volts into the flux-capacitor, sending you back to 2015. You know Marty, I'm gonna be very sad to see you go. You've really made a difference in my life, you've given me something to shoot for. Just knowing, that I'm gonna be around to see 2015, that I'm gonna succeed in this. That I'm gonna have a chance to travel through time. It's going to be really hard waiting 20 years before I can talk to you about everything that's happened here today. I'm really gonna miss you, Marty.

Marty: I'm really gonna miss you. Listen, Doc, there's something I haven't told you about the night-

Doc: No, Marty, having information about the future could be extremely dangerous. Even if your intentions are good, they could backfire drastically. Whatever you've got to tell me I'll find out through the natural course of time.

Scene 11:

Marty is writing a letter.

Marty: (reading over the letter to himself) Dear Doctor Brown, on the night that I go back in time, you will be shot by a terrorist. Please take whatever precautions are necessary to prevent this terrible disaster. Your friend, Marty.

Marty puts the letter in an envelope reading “Do not open until 2015!” and seals it. He puts the letter in the inside pocket of Doc’s coat when Doc is not looking.

Scene 12:

That night, Marty is across the street from the restaurant watching Doc and Clara have dinner. They get up and leave the restaurant. They walk down the street together. Doc puts his arm around Clara. Marty follows them.

Scene 13:

Doc and Clara step onto Clara’s front porch. Marty is watching them from across the street.

Clara: I had a really good time tonight, Emmett.

Doc: So did I, Clara. Would you like to do this again sometime?

Clara: Yeah. I’d like that.

Doc: I’ll call you.

Clara: Okay.

Doc kisses her.

Doc: Well, goodnight.

Clara: Goodnight.

Clara goes inside and shuts the door, slowly, looking out as she does. Doc waits until the door latches, then leaves. Marty takes out the picture and looks at it.

Marty: (to himself) Yes.

Marty goes after Doc.

Scene 14:

Marty and Doc uncover the Tempo. Doc opens the driver’s door.

Doc: Alright, your destination time is set. We’re sending you back to the exact moment you left. It’ll be just like you never left. Now, you see this white line on the street, this is where you start from. (Doc takes a alarm clock from his pocket) I've calculated the distance and wind resistance from the moment the timer will charge the cable. When this alarm goes off you hit the gas. (Doc puts it on the dashboard)

Marty: Right.

Doc: Well, I guess that's everything.

Marty: Thanks.

Doc: Thank you. In about twenty years.

Marty: I hope so.

Doc: Don't worry. As long as you hit that wire with the connecting hook at precisely 48 miles per hour, at the exact moment the timer charges it, everything will be fine.

Marty: Right.

Marty gets in the car. Doc folds his arms in font of him and feels the letter. He pulls it out.

Doc: What's the meaning of this.

Marty: You'll find out in twenty years.

Doc: It's about the future, isn't it? I warned you about this kid. The consequences could be disastrous.

Marty: Now that's a risk you'll have to take you're life depends on it.

Doc: No, I refuse to accept the responsibility. (He tears up the letter)

Marty: In that case, I'll tell you straight out.

Doc: Great scott, I just remembered. I forgot to hook the timer back up. I disconnected it so no one could mess with it.

Marty: I’ll drive you down to it.

Doc: No, you might not get back to the line in time. I’ll run down there myself.

Doc shuts the car door and runs down the street.

Marty: Dammit, Doc, why did you have to tear up that letter? If only I had more time. Wait a minute, I got all the time I want I got a time machine, I'll just go back and warn him. 10 minutes oughta do it.(he resets keypad) Time circuits on, flux capacitor fluxing, engine running, alright.

The alarm goes off. Marty hits the gas. Tempo races toward the cable. Doc gets to the timer and hooks it up. Tempo’s hook hits cable. Tempo disappears.

Doc: Ha, ha, ha. (sighs)

Scene 15:

Tempo appears and stops at “Genesis Nuclear Waste Reclamation Plant.” Marty gets out and looks around.

Marty: All right. It worked. (he checks his watch) 1:24, I still got time. (He gets back in and Tempo dies) No. (He tries to start it) C'mon, c'mon. (anarchist’s car goes by) Hey. The anarchist.

Marty runs after the anarchist’s car.

Scene 16:

Marty gets to the front gate of the school. The sign now reads ”Briarcliff Learning Center” Tempo is coming, followed by anarchist’s car. Tempo disappears. Anarchist’s car keeps going.

Scene 17:

Marty gets to Doc, who is laying on the ground. Marty rolls him onto his back.

Marty: Doc, Doc. Oh, no.

Marty turns away. Doc open his eyes and sits up.

Marty: You're alive.

Doc reveals laser-proof vest

Marty: A laser-proof vest, how did you know? I never got a chance to tell you.

Doc looks back over his shoulder. Marty looks. Clara is there.

Clara: He didn’t know, but I told him he should be careful, just in case.

Marty: Wait a minute. What about the car wreck?

Clara: What car wreck? We’ve never been in any car wreck. There was that one time ten years ago though, Emmett. Remember? If you hadn’t seen that truck coming, we might have been killed.

Marty: I thought you were at home then, Doc.

Doc: I’ve always made sure I’m with Clara whenever possible. After all, we almost never met in the first place.

Marty: Wait, Doc. If the accident never happened, why the hell did you build the time machine in the first place?

Doc: I told you, Marty. To go to the future.

Scene 18:

Doc is in the driver’s seat of the Tempo with the door open. Marty is beside it.

Marty: About how far ahead are you going?

Doc: About 20 years, it's a nice round number.

Marty: Look me up when you get there, guess I'll be about 37.

Doc: I will.

Marty: Take care.

Doc: You too.

Marty: Oh, watch that re-entry, it's a little bumpy.

Doc: You bet.

Marty shuts the door. Doc drives off.

Scene 19:

The next morning, Marty car pulls up to Doc’s house. Marty gets out. Clara comes out to meet him.

Clara: Hi Marty.

Marty: Where’s Doc?

Clara: He’s not back yet. I’ll go tell Jennifer you’re here. You probably want to get going.

Marty: Going?

Clara: Yeah. You two are going to the beach today, aren’t you. You’ve been planning it for two weeks.

Marty: But, Doc wouldn’t let me go out with Jennifer.

Clara: Marty, what are you talking about? I convinced him a long time ago that there’s no one he can trust with his daughter more than you.

Clara goes in the house. A moment later, Jennifer comes out.

Jennifer: Hi Marty.

Marty: Jennifer.

Jennifer: Did you finish that report for school?

Marty: School? What school?

Jennifer: What do you mean “What school?” The school Mom and Dad started when the government gave up on schools. (she puts her arms around him) What’s the matter, Marty? Is everything alright?

Marty puts his arms around her.

Marty: Oh yeah, everything is great.

Marty pulls Jennifer close to kiss her. Just before he does, the Tempo appears and crashes into some garbage cans. Marty and Jennifer look. Doc gets out.

Doc: Marty, Jennifer, you gotta come back with me.

Marty: Back where?

Doc raises futuristic glasses.

Doc: Back to the future.

Doc takes stuff from trash.

Marty: Wait a minute, what are you doing, Doc?

Doc: I need fuel. (puts garbage into tube on car) Go ahead, quick, get in the car.

Marty: No no no, Doc, I just got here, okay, Jennifer's here, we're gonna go to the beach

Doc: Well, this concerns her too.

Marty: Wait a minute, Doc. What are you talking about? What happens to us in the future? What do we become assholes or something?

Doc: No no no no no, Marty, both you and Jennifer turn out fine. It's your kids, Marty, something has got to be done about your kids.

Scene 20:

Doc, Marty, and Jennifer are in the car. Doc’s driving. Jennifer’s on Marty’s lap.

Doc: Time circuits on. (he turns them on)

Marty: Hey, Doc, what are you doing, we don't have enough room up here to get up to 48.

Doc: You wanta bet? I’ve done a little (he lowers the glasses) tweaking.

The Tempo’s front wheels spin and the car drives off and disappears.

THE END

Ethical Forest Management

I originally posted this on my old website November 26, 2004.

I wrote this paper in the spring of 2004 for an Ethics class during my Senior year of college. 

Ethical Forest Management
By Robert West

One of the major environmental issues facing society today is forest management.  On one side, environmental activists argue for protection and preservation of forests and the natural habitats they provide.  On the other side are the timber companies and their employees, who fight for their livelihoods, which are dependent on products the world needs. Both sides believe they are ethically correct.  Being from Oregon, I am very familiar with this issue.  This paper will explore the ethics of both sides, and whether there is a balance point between them.

First, the environmentalist view.  There is no doubt that forests have been diminishing over time.  Over the last several centuries, humanity has consumed and destroyed forests around the world.  Environmentalists see this destruction as something that must end to preserve not only the forests themselves, but also the animal species they support.  This is based on a number of ethical concepts.

First, there is the concept of ecological ethics. Ecological ethics is the view that the non-human parts of the environment have intrinsic value; that they are ends in themselves, and must be maintained despite the potential cost to humanity.  (Velasquez, 288-289) This view holds that the species of animals that are dependent on forests as their habitat should not be threatened with extinction due to the destruction of the forests that make up that habitat. 

Another concept is that of environmental rights.  This view holds that all human beings have rights to the environment, and that when some harm the environment, they are infringing on the rights of others to have a natural, livable environment.  (Velasquez, 291-292) This view is more often applied to pollution, but it can be applied to forestry as well.  When someone destroys a forest, they have taken away the rights of others to enjoy that forest and all it provides.

A third concept is that of rights and justice of future generations.  This generally applies to non-renewable resources, but I believe it can also apply to forests, due to the fact that a clear-cut forest would take decades of not centuries to renew itself.  This view, as stated by John Rawls, holds that it is ethically unjust to leave the world in worse condition for future generations than it was for our own.  This does not mean that it must necessarily be exactly as it was, but that resources that are consumed allow the preservation of culture and civilization with appropriate advancement.  (Velasquez, 309-311) In essence, whatever was consumed should be used for things future generations will be able to appreciate as well.  The current generation can use what it must to continue on, but must also ensure that resources are not depleted more than necessary.

Ecological ethics and environmental rights both state that the preservation of the environment must override human needs.  Allowing for the rights of future generations allow for necessary consumption of resources, so long as future generations are not left worse off than the current generation (although this could also be carried to the extreme of saying that future generations should have equal resources available to them as the current generation).

Now, the views of the timber industry.  One of the main views is that of property rights.  Basically the concept is that the owners of property have the right to do as they wish with it.  John Locke considered property right to be “natural” rights that could not be taken away.  This view has been reflected by American law.  (Velasquez, 175-177) In the view of the timber industry, this means that if someone wants to protect the forests, they can buy the forest and they will then have that right, but they do not have the right to force the timber industry to use their property a certain way.

The timber industry’s other main argument is that the livelihoods of the employees of the timber industry would be harmed if logging slows, the employees of the industry will be harmed.  (Durning, 43) This is a reflection of the United Nations “Universal Declaration of Human Rights,” one of which is “the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favorable conditions of work, and to protection against unemployment.”  (Velasquez, 90) The argument goes that the workers have skills specific to the timber industry, an industry they have chosen to work in.  Restricting the timber industry would have the result of keeping the workers from being employed in a job they want to do. (Durning, 43)

The arguments of the timber industry are just as valid as those of the environmentalists (though in the case of the employees’ right to work, the timber companies probably have other motives). 

This issue, like so many others, is too often seen in black and white; there are two sides and no middle ground between them.  I don’t believe this is true.  All of the ethical concepts of both sides tend to be focused entirely on one side or the other, except for the idea of justice to future generations.  I think this concept is the key to finding a balance point, as it recognizes both the value of the preserving the environment and the needs of consumption.  This argument is usually only used to promote the environmentalist view, but that would be because the concept seems to advocate less consumption.  It is really more of a moderate view though, at least as I see it.

The problem with finding a balance point is that it requires both sides to accept concessions.  The timber industry and its employees see environmentalism as a threat to their livelihood, which depends on harvesting and producing products that are needed by the rest of the world.

The environmentalists on the other hand seem to hold the view that the cutting of a single tree causes irreparable damage to the environment.  This is often fueled by the emotional power of clear cutting.  Modern clear cutting leaves an entire area of a forest cleared of trees.  Fresh clear cuts look devastating, however while clear cuts do cause some damage to the environment, they are not devastating as they appear. (Belt, Clearcutting)

First, clear cutting was most widely practiced on natural forests in the 1800s.  (Belt, Clearcutting) Thus, today there are many forests that are not “natural” forests, in that they were cut 100 or more years ago and then grew back, with trees of a common age throughout.  Since the land had already been logged, the damage has already been done, and the additional damage done by harvesting the same area again would be less than moving into a previously untouched forest.

Also, clear cut areas allow faster regrowth than if trees were selectively cut.  (Belt, Clearcutting) Trees need light and water to grow, and young trees in the open have greater access to light and water than they would under the canopy of an existing forest. In addition, while clear cuts do displace some wildlife, they also provide open areas for other wildlife, such as bear and deer. (Belt, Clearcutting)

I am personally opposed to clear cutting previously untouched natural forests.  I have no problem with the logging of regrowth of previously harvested forests, though, so long as they are always allowed to renew themselves.  The way I see it, the damage has been done.  There are environmentalists that believe strongly in the concept of ecological ethics, however I feel that they usually don’t realize that humanity is part of the environment as well, and I believe that nature’s balance allows for some human consumption. Society will continue to need forest products, and it is better to have forests grown specifically for that purpose than to allow damage to spread to other natural forests.  That said, I think some logging in natural forests is necessary, such as for fire prevention (a major concern in the West), but this should be limited to clearing around populated areas and thinning of highly-flammable underbrush.  There are also other logging techniques, such as selective cutting in which some trees are harvested from with in the forest, leaving the area having a forested appearance immediately after harvest and able to continue as a working forest with a variety of trees of different ages and qualities.  Also, there are seed tree cuts, in which a forest is heavily thinned but some trees remain to reseed the forest for regrowth.  (Belt, Silvics) I believe in the right circumstances, these other techniques can be used as alternatives to clear cutting to allow logging and still protect the environment.

As far as the arguments of the timber companies go, I respect the property rights of the companies to do with their land as they see fit.  I think it is important though that they try to maintain as much of the forests as they can on their own lands.  There are presumably timber companies that would just as soon clear cut everything they have access to as quickly as possible.  While reasonable harvesting rates allow wildlife to move to other areas, harvesting too quickly would displace so many animals that the remaining areas would not be able to support the animal population.  This would result in reducing the wildlife population and threatening the survival of remaining forests.  Not only is overharvesting bad for the environment, but it also harms the long-term well-being of the company and all its employees and their families.  Even if a company replants to replace everything they harvest, if they harvest too quickly, the company will have no trees left while it waits 20 to 50 years for regrowth to be developed enough to harvest again.  In that situation, the company would be forced to lay off employees, as there would be no work for them, and likely the company itself would fail.  Harvesting too fast, while good for short-term profit, is not good for the long-term well-being of either the planet or the company.

I do not fully believe the arguments made by the timber industry that preserving forests will result in lost jobs.  It is true that if overall production is simply reduced jobs would probably be lost.  But, if logging is changed to be more environmentally friendly, with more careful logging practices, I think the industry could actually create more jobs.  Combined with recycling and alternative materials, I think production and jobs can be maintained, and the environment preserved.

One other thing that I think is important to remember is that trees are a renewable resource.  Unlike with other natural resources that must be mined for, such as coal, iron and stone, when trees are harvested the land can be fairly quickly reused, either for future forests or other uses.  Also, many forest products are recyclable or reusable for different uses.  I am often more concerned about the extensive use of non-renewable resources, which seem to have much more of an impact on the environment, not only in getting the raw materials but also in making them into a usable form.

In the end, I think that there can be a balance made between environmental ethics and the interests of the timber industry.  I think society is still a little to much on the side of the industry to find that balance, but I believe that the balance will someday be reached.

Works Cited

Belt, Kevin & Campbell, Robert. Silvics & Silviculture – The Agriculture of Trees. West Virginia University. 28 Apr. 2004. < http://www.wvu.edu/~agexten/forestry/silvics.htm>

Belt, Kevin & Campbell, Robert. The Clearcutting Controversy – Myths and Facts. West Virginia University. 28 Apr. 2004. <http://www.wvu.edu/~agexten/forestry/clrcut.htm>

Durning, Alan Thein. Saving the Forests: What Will It Take?, Worldwatch Paper 117 , Washington D.C., Worldwatch Institute, December 1993.

Velasquez, Manuel, G. Business Ethics: Concepts and Cases – 5^th ed. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, Pearson Education, Inc., 2002.

© Robert D. West, 2004.

Theodore Roosevelt: A Great American President

I originally posted this on my old website November 26, 2004.

I wrote this paper in early 2004 for an American Government class during my Senior year of college. 

Theodore Roosevelt: A Great American President
By Robert West

The twenty-sixth president of the United States and the youngest to ever hold office, Theodore Roosevelt is among the best-remembered presidents.  He is remembered not just for his youth, but also for the way he led the country at the dawn of the last century.  Rarely allowing himself to be swayed by his party or the politics of the time, Roosevelt followed his own moral judgment in relations with business and diplomacy, and proved himself one of the country’s best presidents.

Less than a year after becoming Vice-President of the United States, the unexpected death of President William McKinley from an assassin’s bullet put the young Roosevelt at the reins of the country.  Roosevelt stated his plans “to continue absolutely unbroken the policy of President McKinley,” (Burton, pg. 91) but it would not be long before the new President would be making his own policy known. 

Roosevelt’s first major trial as president was his action against J. P. Morgan’s Northern Securities Company.  The Northern Securities Company was a holding company created to combine the interests of western railroad tycoons Morgan and James J. Hill with those of Edward H. Harriman.  The end result would have been a monopoly on railroad transportation through the American northwest, a violation of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, and so Roosevelt’s Attorney-General, Philander Knox, filed a suit against the holding company to force its dissolution on March 10, 1902.  (Busch, pg. 165-167) 

Roosevelt was not hostile toward big businesses, so long as they were abiding by the law.  In an address to Congress in December 1901, Roosevelt said “…we are not attacking the corporations but endeavoring to do away with the evil in them…We draw the line against misconduct and not against wealth.” (Burton, pg. 98) When Morgan, at a meeting with Roosevelt about the upcoming suit against the Northern Securities Company, asked if Roosevelt planned to go after his other interests, Roosevelt replied “Certainly not, unless we find that they have done something we regard as wrong.” (Busch, pg. 197)

The Northern Securities case was resolved by the Supreme Court in 1904, with the holding company being broken up, (Burton, pg. 99) but this was just the beginning of Roosevelt’s action on regulating corporations.  Roosevelt filed an antitrust suit against the meat packing company Swift in April 1902.  (Chessman, pg. 85-86)  On the recommendations of Roosevelt’s administration, in 1903 Congress passed the Elkins Act (Chessman, pg. 86), which prevented railroads from giving rebates to large shippers giving them lower rates that smaller shippers (Blum, pg. 74), and created the Department of Commerce and Labor, with a Bureau of Corporations to oversee interstate corporations.

Another area in which Roosevelt involved himself was in the area of labor relations.  On May 12, 1902, the United Mine Workers went on strike, putting a stop to the mining of anthracite coal, which was as a fuel for heating and cooking.  The union president, John Mitchell, requested a small pay increase, shorter hours and assurance that scales were accurate (pay was based on how mush coal a miner could dig up). The mining companies refused.  (Busch, pg. 163-164)  The strike stretched on through the summer and by September the price of coal had increased from $5 a ton to $20 a ton.  Republican politicians as well as the general public were becoming concerned that coal would not be available at all by winter, and Roosevelt felt he had to take some action on behalf of the national government to end the strike.  (Burton, pg. 102)  Roosevelt didn’t simply send in troops to protect the mine owner’s property and force the strike to end, nor did he have troops take over the mines and run them for the government (Busch, pg. 164-165), though he did keep nationalizing the mines as a last resort. (Burton, pg. 103)  Instead, he took an approach to maintain his neutrality, and still bring an end to the strike which he viewed as an impending national crisis.  Roosevelt invited Mitchell and the presidents of the major coal companies to meet with him on October 3 in Washington.  (Burton, pg. 103)   The owners were stubborn, demanding an injunction and suit against the strikers and use of the military to maintain order, and refusing to even consider Roosevelt’s suggestion of an arbitration council, an approach Mitchell approved of. (Chessman, pg. 90)   Only after Roosevelt threatened to have the military take over the mines and run them did the mine owners consent to arbitration, and the miners agreed to go back to work. (Burton, pg. 104) Roosevelt’s willingness to stand up to the mine owners for the union workers is significant because Roosevelt was not a supporter of unions.  While Roosevelt supported the rights of workers to join unions, he also believed in the worker’s right to not join a union.  (Chessman, pg. 93)  He also insisted on a non-union “open-shop” for government employees.  (Blum, pg. 59)  In other instances, Roosevelt followed a policy of non-interference between the unions and owners (Chessman, pg. 92-93), but when the good of the nation required him to act, Roosevelt, despite his dislike for unions, did not send in troops to force the production of coal.  Instead, he found a way to appease both sides and get the miners back to work quickly.

Roosevelt had many successes in the area of diplomacy.  When Germany and Britain blockaded Venezuelan ports in an attempt to collect on debts owed to German and British citizens, Roosevelt sent the Navy to the Caribbean with plans to break up the blockade unless Germany and Britain agreed to negotiate a peaceful settlement with Venezuela, which Roosevelt’s show of force led them to do.  (Chessman, pg. 98, Busch, pg. 168)  Roosevelt agreed to arbitrate a conflict with Canada over the Alaskan border, an issue that he saw had an obvious answer that needed no negotiating, to maintain good relations with Canada and England.  Britain’s Lord Chief Justice ended up making the final decision, and gave the United States all it was rightfully claiming, the result Roosevelt anticipated. (Busch, pg. 169)  Roosevelt also negotiated in a conflict between France and Germany over the control of the ports of Morocco.  (Burton, pg. 134)  Roosevelt’s greatest accomplishments in diplomacy, however, were the building of the Panama Canal and his role in ending the Russo-Japanese War.

The Panama Canal was a dream of Roosevelt’s, and by 1903 a treaty had been formed with Colombia to enable the construction to be started.  The US Senate had ratified the treaty, but the Colombian government ended up rejecting the treaty. (Chessman, pg. 97-98)  A more expensive route through Nicaragua was a possibility, but not preferred.  The United States had a previous treaty with Colombia that gave the US the power to maintain transit on the isthmus of Panama.  Based on this treaty, Roosevelt sent the US Navy to Panama, where a revolution was in the making.  When the revolution took place in November 1903, US Marines prevented Colombian troops from reaching Panama.  Within days, a treaty had been signed with the new Republic of Panama for construction of the canal. (Chessman, pg. 99)  The Panamanian revolution, which had only one casualty (two if one counts a donkey), attracted a great deal of attention.  Roosevelt maintained that while he did not have an active role in the revolution, he did allow it to occur.  He said in 1914, “People say I fomented insurrection in Panama prior to the time I became President.  While I was President I kept my foot down on these revolutions so that when the revolution referred to did occur, I did not have to foment it; I simply lifted my foot.” (Busch, pg. 162-163)  Roosevelt firmly believed that, despite his methods, he did what was necessary to get the canal built.  In 1911, Roosevelt said, “If I had followed conventional, conservative methods, I should have submitted a dignified state paper of approximately two hundred pages to the Congress and the debate would have been going on yet, but I took the canal zone and let Congress debate, and while the debate goes on the Canal does also.” (Busch, pg. 163)

A different approach came about in Roosevelt’s handling of the Russo-Japanese War.  Russia and Japan were involved in a war over parts of Korea and Manchuria.  Japan had generally been victorious, and had won everything it wanted to win.  Russia, having been losing, also desired an end to the war, but the country’s pride stood in the way.  The two countries came to Roosevelt to come to an agreement.  (Busch, pg. 191)  Roosevelt invited the delegates to his Presidential yacht to draw up a treaty.  Though officially Roosevelt was only a host, Roosevelt was essential to the proceedings. (Chessman, pg. 114)  Both sides were fairly stubborn when it came to making concessions over lands won during the war, particularly Sakhalin Island, which both sides occupied, and it was Roosevelt who maintained communication between the countries during the negotiations.  In the end, it was Roosevelt’s direct plea to the Japanese Emperor for a compromise that brought about a treaty that the both sides could agree on.  For his role in the Russo-Japanese negotiations, Roosevelt was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1906, as without his diplomatic touch, the war between the two eastern powers could have continued on, dramatically altering the balance of power in much of the world.  (Burton, pg. 131)

Theodore Roosevelt was a great negotiator and peacemaker.  In one of his final acts as President, he sent the US Navy, which he had greatly expanded (Chessman, pg. 106), on a trip around the world, as a show of America’s naval power and goodwill toward other countries.  (Busch, pg. 214-216)  This action defines a President who is not remembered for involving the United States directly in any major conflict.  In his dealings with business and with other countries, Theodore Roosevelt showed strength and an ability to be firm but fair to all sides.  Among all his contributions he made to the United States and the rest of the world, it is his impeccable sense of morality and his unwillingness to concede to other interests that made him the President that is remembered today.

References

Blum, John Morton. 1980. The Republican Roosevelt. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Burton, David H. 1972. Theodore Roosevelt. New York, NY: Twayne Publishers, Inc.

Busch, Noel F. 1963. T. R. The Story of Theodore Roosevelt and His Influence on Our Times. New York, NY: Reynal & Company.

Chessman, G. Wallace. Theodore Roosevelt and the Politics of Power. Boston, MA: Little, Brown & Company.

© Robert D. West, 2004.

The Possibilities of Time Travel

I originally posted this on my old website in November 2002.

I wrote this report for my Technical Composition class during my Freshman year at MSOE.  I was actually curious to do a casual investigation into the possibility of time travel into the past ever becoming a reality, and figure I might as well do it for a grade.  I was somewhat surprised by what I was able to find on the subject, without needing a full understanding of quantum physics and the associated complex mathematics.  As it stands, I think it is at least a good basic introduction to the concept of relativity.

 

The Possibilities of Time Travel
By Robert West

 

Introduction

Time travel has been a dream of people ever since H. G. Wells wrote The Time Machine and a dream of scientists since Einstein created his theory of relativity and suggested that it might actually be possible.  But is it possible?

Purpose

The purpose of this report is to analyze the possibility of traveling through time, either to the future or into the past, and determine if it is a goal worth pursuing.

Scope

This report will cover the following areas:

1. Einstein’s Theory of Relativity & how it relates to time
2. The possibility of traveling into the future
3. The possibility of traveling into the past
4. Experiments with the speed of light
5. What is preventing further experimentation

Limitations of Research

Research on this topic was limited because almost all data on time travel is theoretical, and the mathematics and quantum physics involved in time travel theories is too advanced for anyone without a degree in physics to fully understand.  Also, time travel has not been seriously studied until very recently, and therefore books on the subject are difficult to find.  Many scientists have avoided time travel so their colleagues would not think less of them for considering it.  Stephen Hawking has said, “A physicist working on the possibility of travel into the past has to be careful not to be labeled a crank, or accused of wasting public money on science-fiction fantasy” (“Time Travel”).

Data and Analysis

The Relative Nature of Time

Before Einstein’s theory of relativity, time was thought to be a constant throughout the universe.  Einstein changed that by saying that time is relative.  As an object’s speed increases, time slows down around it.  A common example of this theory involves two twins.  One twin takes off in a space ship and travels for a year at a speed near the speed of light, while the other twin stays on earth.  When the first twin returns to earth a year later, the second twin has aged ten years (Davies) (“Time Travel”).  In this way, according to Einstein, time travel into the future is possible.  Speed is not the only way to change the speed of time.  Gravity also affects time.  Einstein’s general theory of relativity states that time and space curve in relation to the mass and density of nearby objects.  An object’s mass and density determine its gravitational pull.  Objects with greater gravitational pull curve time and space more.  Time flows faster for GPS satellites in orbit than for us on earth, due to decreased gravitational forces.  The mass of the earth has less gravitational affect on the satellites then it does on up because they are farther away.  Within a black hole, where gravity is believed to be strong enough to crush any object to the subatomic level, scientists believe time stops completely (Davies). 

Traveling To The Future

Does Einstein’s theory work?  Will we ever travel to the future?  Actually, people do it all the time.  Airline passengers travel into the future every trip, but only by a fraction of a second, because their speed is only slightly higher then that of people standing on the earth.  A 1971 experiment by Joe Hafele and Richard Keating proved this.  They flew an atomic clock around the world and then compared it to one that had stayed on earth.  The clock from the plane was off by 40 billionths of a second (“Time Travel”)

As for traveling hundreds or thousands of years into the future, we will have to wait until high-speed space travel becomes a reality.  The time differential will become a fact of life for space explorers, as they will end up going into the future during every trip.  But even though travel into the future is possible, we still have to worry about going back to the past.

Going Back in Time

Einstein’s theory of relativity shows us how to go into the future, but it avoids the concept of going backwards in time.  Einstein never says that it is possible, but he never says that it is not either.  The difference between going into the future and going back in time is that while you can use speed or gravity to change how fast time flows, it is still moving forward.  To go back in time, you have to make time move backwards.  The debate over time travel has divided scientists into two groups.  One group believes it is impossible to travel into the past.  The other group believes it is theoretically possible and has several possible theories for how it might be accomplished.

Theories

The Cylinder Theory

One possibility for traveling into the past suggests that a massive cylinder, rotating at half the speed of light, could provide a way into the past if it were infinitely long and dense enough, and if a spaceship could circle it (Stone).  The density and speed of the rotating cylinder would curve time around it, so by circling it in a spacecraft, one could possibly travel back through time (See Appendix A).  Just creating a cylinder large enough for the first theory would take far more resources then we could ever hope to create.  Then it would have to be rotated at half the speed of light, a speed we are nowhere near achieving.

The Cosmic String Theory

Another theory, devised by Princeton astrophysics professor J. Richard Gott III, involves cosmic strings.  Cosmic strings are theoretical strings of high energy incredibly thin and incredibly long.  If a large enough loop of a cosmic string could be found and made to contract, the resulting density of the energy could be great enough to provide a way into the past (See Appendix B).  Cosmic strings, however, like wormholes, are only theoretical and have never been observed. Gott himself admits that cosmic strings have never been discovered, and that a trip backwards one year would require a string with half the energy of an entire galaxy.  Not only that, but the gravitational forces could create a black hole, making access to the gravitational forces needed for the trip inaccessible (Gott).

The Wormhole Theory

A third theory involves wormholes.  In theory, a wormhole is a black hole that connects two distant points in space, due to the fact that a massive enough object with enough density could curve space and time enough for two distant points to connect, via the wormhole.  According to physicists at Caltech, if one end of the wormhole moves at near the speed of light while the other stays in one place, the fixed end will connect to a time earlier than the moving end (See Appendix C).  Such a wormhole has not been discovered, and the energy needed to create one artificially would be enormous. Still, this theory is the most probable, but it is still unlikely anytime in the foreseeable future.  Wormholes have been created, but their openings are microscopic and only stay open for a fraction of a second.  To keep a wormhole open large enough and long enough to enter requires negative density, which can be created by holding two electrically conducting plates incredibly close together in a vacuum.  Negative density has been created in a laboratory on a small scale, but to create the negative density needed for the wormhole would require plates with mass over 200 times greater than the sun (Gott).

Exceeding The Speed Of Light

Einstein believed nothing could ever exceed the speed of light.  Most scientists have agreed that the speed of light is the “speed-limit” of the universe, although some scientists still wondered what would happen if something did break the “speed-limit.” An experiment performed by the NEC Research Institute in Princeton New Jersey provides the strongest evidence for time travel into the past.  This experiment involved sending a laser beam through a glass cylinder filled with cesium gas.  The beam of light traveled 310 times as far as it could have at the speed of light, and actually exited the gas chamber before it entered it, ending up 20 meters past the chamber before it even entered it.  The beam actually went back in time, proving that at least light can exceed the “speed-limit,” and go back in time.  The scientists who performed the experiment claim that it is still impossible for any object with mass to exceed the speed of light, but the experiment still opens up many possibilities (Chandler).

Another experiment found a similar result with microwaves.  Professor Guenter Nimtz split a single microwave signal in two directions, sending one half through the air and the other half into a barrier.  An oscilloscope showed that a small part of the signal sent toward the barrier went through it and ended up ahead of the signal traveling at the speed of light.  This is due to quantum tunneling, which based on the idea that, at the subatomic level, everything is based on probability and that something that might be impossible for us can happen on the subatomic scale.  This is how some particles can appear on the other side of the barrier.  Raymond Chiao has confirmed Nimtz’s results with experiments of his own.  In his laboratory he has found that a single photon can travel at 1.7 times the speed of light with quantum tunneling (“Time Travel”).

Despite having similar results, Nimtz and Chiao disagree on what they mean.  Nimtz believes he could send a message back through time with quantum tunneling.  Chiao says he couldn’t.  Chiao believes that because of the randomness that occurs at the subatomic level, the signal would not be a signal after traveling through the quantum tunnel.  Both Chiao and Nimtz insist they are correct, but neither can fully prove the other wrong.  Still, both their experiments show that the speed of light can be exceeded, leaving the possibility sending a message to the past, if not going there personally (“Time Travel”).

Conclusions and Recommendations

Reasons We Can’t Travel Through Time

No theory for time travel can even be tested for many years, possibly centuries or even millennia.  Going to the future is possible, but making a trip of any significance requires speeds we can only dream of today.  As we develop faster modes of travel, experimentation will become more possible.  But any significant experiments will not be possible until speeds approach the speed of light.  All experiments for travel into the past depend on either theoretical stellar phenomena, massive constructions in space, or a combination of the two.  None of them violate the theory of relativity; therefore all of them could theoretically work if the circumstances needed for them could be created.  However, all of the theories would require massive amounts of energy and materials.  Because of this, many scientists believe time travel will remain a dream.  Also, Stephen Hawking claims that an attempt to travel backwards in time would produce a buildup of energy that would tear space apart, however there is no evidence to support this (Stone).  Physicists who believe in time travel have found theoretical loopholes for every argument presented by the opposite side, so the debate remains unresolved. 

Conclusions

Time travel into the future is clearly possible, and will become a problem as space travel reaches higher speeds, as there will be no way to get back to the past after a long journey at high speeds.  Traveling into the future is not a matter that needs additional study.  It has been proven to be possible, and it will become more of a reality for coming generations as space exploration reaches speeds where the time differential becomes significant.

As for time travel into the past, it may be theoretically possible. Astronomer Carl Sagan says of time travel, “Right now we are in one of those classic, wonderfully provocative moments in science where we just don’t know” (“Time Travel”).  I would have to agree with him.  It has been discovered that light can travel backwards through time if it exceeds the speed of light, and several theories have been proposed to send matter back through time.  However, the energy needed to test any theory will not be available any time in the foreseeable future.  Time travel into the past, while it seems to be possible in theory, will have to remain a dream, possibly for millennia, until our technology becomes advanced enough to experiment with matter.  Someday, we may know for sure, but that day is many years off.

Recommendations

As a result of this analysis, I recommend the following:

1. Any experimentation regarding time travel should be put on hold until we achieve technology that is affected by time’s relative properties, such as the ability to travel at speeds near the speed of light.
2. Upon achieving this technological advancement, experimentation with time should begin in order to determine if time travel into the past is possible.

Time travel is a dream that may someday become reality, however it is clear that no one alive today will see any significant trips into either the future or the past.  Despite the fact that it remains out of reach, it leaves scientists with a goal that stimulates the imagination and reminds them that anything might be possible.  While I do not think it is something today’s scientists should be concerned with, it is something that mankind should research when the time is right.

Appendices

Appendix A: Diagram of the Cylinder Theory

Appendix B: Diagram of the Cosmic String Theory

Appendix C: Diagram of the Wormhole Theory

Works Cited

Chandler, David L. “Speed of Light may not be the Last Word.” Boston Globe 20 Jul. 2000: Online. Proquest. 18 Jan. 2001.

Davies, Paul. “Star warps.” Forbes 30 Nov. 1998: Online. Proquest. 18 Jan. 2001

Gott III, J. Richard. “Will We Travel Back (or Forward) in Time?” Time 155.14 (10 Apr. 2000): MAS Online Plus. Online. EBSCO. 18 Jan. 2001.

Stone, Brad. “From here to there: The Physics of time travel.” Newsweek 16 Mar. 1998: Online. Proquest. 18 Jan. 2001

“Time Travel.” Nova. PBS. WGBH, Boston. 12 Oct. 1999. Transcript.

© Robert D. West: 2001, 2003.

Amtrak: Self-sufficient by 2003?

I originally posted this on my old website in November 2002.

I wrote this article for my Technical Composition class at MSOE during my Freshman year in 2001.  At the time, there was a lot of talk of Amtrak’s demise, and it looked like the end was near.  In this article, I explained why Amtrak couldn’t expect to meet the 2003 deadline, and why it seemed likely that Amtrak would disappear.  I have followed it with an update expressing my current views on the subject.

Amtrak: Self-sufficient by 2003?
By Robert West

“There’s something about a train that’s magic.”  If you have ridden a passenger train recently, you might recognize those words as a slogan for Amtrak, our national passenger railroad.  Soon, however, that magic may disappear.  Congress has declared that if Amtrak is not making enough revenue to support itself by 2003, it will be privatized or liquidated.  With less than 2 years before the deadline, Amtrak is still in the red. Can its “magic” save it, or will the government make Amtrak’s final last call?

Since being created by the federal government in 1971, Amtrak has never shown a profit, and currently loses over $900 million every year.  This shortfall is made up by federal tax dollars.  In 1997, after over 25 years of support, Congress decided to stop covering Amtrak’s losses, beginning in 2003, leaving Amtrak 5 years to show a profit.  So far, Amtrak’s only profitable trains are the high-speed metroliners in the northeastern part of the country, in an area called the Northeast Corridor.  Trains in the rest of the country continue to lose money, leaving Amtrak seemingly hopeless.

Can Amtrak become self sufficient in 2 years?  Amtrak still believes it is possible.  Since the deadline was imposed, Amtrak has worked with state governments to improve service in Southern California and the Pacific Northwest with sleek new equipment and many more scheduled trains to make Amtrak more competitive with commuter airlines.  As a result, ridership in these areas has increased dramatically.  For example, ridership in Oregon increased 27% in 1998, and ridership in the Pacific Northwest was at an all-time high in 1999.  Amtrak has also recently introduced new high-speed trains called “Acela” in the Northeast Corridor.  These trains are being used to give Amtrak a new inage and are expected to boost ridership and revenues in the already profitable corridor. 

Yet despite all Amtrak’s improvements and record-setting ridership in several areas, self-sufficiency still seems out of its grasp.  The new trains in the West have yet to break even, and the new Acela trains were introduced a year later than planned, delaying potential profits Amtrak desperately needs.

But did Amtrak ever really have a chance of becoming self-sufficient at all?  Many people argue that since the Northeast Corridor is profitable, certainly other routes can show a profit as well.  And it has been suggested that Amtrak could do some internal restructuring and reorganizing to streamline their operation.  Obviously that would save it some money, but it probably would not make Amtrak self-sufficient.  Amtrak’s shortfall is a lot of money to make up for, and the cards seem to be stacked against Amtrak. 

First, most of Amtrak’s funding is allocated from Congress, and some Congressmen have been almost blackmailing Amtrak, forcing the railroad to continue operating money-losing routes in their states to ensure their states’ support for the railroad’s funding.  Second, based on the history of America’s railroads, Amtrak cannot support itself.  The railroads of America had been losing money on passenger trains since the Great Depression and passenger trains have continued to lose money ever since.  They continued to exist because the Interstate Commerce Commission forced railroads to continue passenger service, and the railroads had the profits of their freight trains to make up for the shortfall of the passenger trains.  In addition, a large part of the revenue of passenger trains was produced from express and mail shipments.  In the 1950s and 60s mail and express shipments accounted for 40% to 50% of passenger train revenue.  Recently, Amtrak has started to offer express service to increase revenue, including boxcars and modifies truck trailers in some of their passenger trains, but the service’s growth has been slow, due partly to opposition from the freight railroads, on whose tracks Amtrak operates in most of the country.

            The chances of Amtrak becoming self-sufficient are almost non-existent, but no one should have expected Amtrak to be able to turn itself around, especially so quickly.  At least some good came out of the government’s deadline, in the form of Amtrak’s new equipment and improved service.  Hopefully, Amtrak’s successor, whatever it may be, will be free enough to base its decisions on economics instead of politics, and still maintain the “magic” Amtrak claims to have.  As for Amtrak itself, it’s heading for the end of the line, and no magic wand can stop it.

Since I wrote this, things have changed for Amtrak.  Most notable was Amtrak’s service in the days after September 11, 2001.  With all the nations airports closed, Amtrak became the most viable form of transportation for a time, proving its worth and forcing Congress to take another look at it.  In the summer of 2002, Amtrak President David Gunn pushed the issue by threatening to shut down the entire system if the government didn’t find it $200 million to operate the rest of the year.  Then the numbers starting coming out.  According to an editorial by Derrick Jackson in the June 21, 2002 issue of the Boston Globe, Amtrak has lost over $20 billion since 1971, however in 2001 alone, airlines lost $7 billion!  In 2001, airlines received $13 billion in government funding, and highways received $34 billion, but Amtrak has only received $24 billion since 1971.  Currently, Amtrak receives less than $2 billion per year, and unlike airlines, which are private companies, Amtrak is a federal program.

In my opinion, the government should stop funding airlines, or at least significantly cut their funding, since they are, after all, private companies that should be able to survive without government help.  In theory, the government shouldn’t have to give Amtrak any money either, but so much has been put into the airlines and highways already, that the government should increase Amtrak’s funding for a time to level the playing field.  Eventually, Amtrak would be able to show a profit, without federal funding and only slightly higher fares.  The airlines remaining in business after losing government funding would have to increase fares dramatically, so that they reflect the speed air travel provides.  Most airline fares would at least double, whereas on Amtrak, the most dramatic ticket increases would be about $100.

Through the implementation of this plan, I believe both Amtrak and the airline industry can be profitable within only a few years.  While the cost of traveling would increase, taxes would decrease because of the billions of dollars that would no longer go into transportation.  Also, because of the healthy competition that would result, service on Amtrak and airlines would improve, and the transportation industry would aim for improved efficiency, reducing our demand for oil.

So what would keep this plan from being implemented?  I believe the answer is politics.  The airline industry is a powerful lobby, that presumably donates large sums of money to candidates for federal office, and expects something in return: subsidies.  Amtrak on the other hand, being a government entity to begin with, cannot make donations and has no leverage with which to secure its funding, aside from the threat of cutting service.  Also, neither the Republicans nor the Democrats want to actually put any effort into making Amtrak profitable.  Republicans tend to see Amtrak as a waste of money and just want to cut it off, while the Democrats want to simply continue to throw money at it and maintain it as it is.  (Note: If you are curious as to my political views, I believe in minimal interference by the federal government in most affairs and thus consider myself a Republican, although I oppose the actions of many Republican politicians, including the acceptance of corporate campaign donations.)  So, while I do believe Amtrak can be saved, I don’t think it ever will be.  At least not as long as lawmakers are more concerned about their own political careers than what is best for the American people.

© Robert D. West: 2000, 2003.

Education: What’s The Point?

I originally posted this on my old website in November 2002.

This is the final draft of my fourth essay for Writing 121, a college composition class I took at Rainier High School during my Senior year in 2000.  The citing tags refer to an essay written by Richard Rodriguez, which was included in the textbook for the course, the title of which I have long forgotten.  This paper makes some interesting points about the current state of American public education, and suggests why we are falling behind the rest of the world and what we might do to catch up. 

Education: What's the point?
By Robert West

“Education?  What's the point?  Why, to learn stuff, of course.  After all, isn’t that why people go to school: to learn how to read and write and do arithmetic.  Isn’t that the point?”

To most people, that would be the answer to the title question.  It seems so obvious, too.  The point of education is to learn stuff.  It’s a simple answer, and it makes perfect sense.  Too bad it’s completely wrong.

“But the point of education is to learn stuff.”  Many of those people would continue to argue that the point of education is to learn things, but I say no, no, no, no, no.  The point of education is not to learn things.  Well, at least not entirely.

Gaining knowledge is a part of education.  Acquiring skills is another part.  These are necessary for education; they must be achieved for education to be successful.  In that way, they are points of education.  However, gaining knowledge and acquiring skills are not the main points of education, or at least they shouldn’t be.

People naturally gain knowledge and skills through life experience.  Formal education, The System, attempts to teach students the knowledge and skills that would be most beneficial for them to have.  It attempts to be efficient in order to teach the students as much as possible.  Much of what is taught in schools could be learned by individuals later in life.  Schools just try to speed up the process.  After all, we can’t just walk into a convenience store and pick up a can of Knowledge Soda with lunch, nor can we send $29.95 plus $4.95 shipping and handling to a mail order house in Cleveland for some audio CDs we could listen to at night and have the entire encyclopedia in our brain after one night.  Learning doesn’t just happen.  It takes time, effort, ambition.

So, what happens after we’ve learned how to find the volume of a box and memorized the presidents of the United States in order?  Do we just file the information away in our minds until someone hands us a box and says, “Find the volume,” or someone asks us who the 23^rd president of the United States was?  Or is there more to it than that?

Despite what some people may say, I believe there is more to it.  I believe that the point of education should be to teach students how to use the information and skills they acquire.  I’m not saying that schools should stop teaching students skills and information.  I’m just saying that they should change their emphasis.

An example will illustrate what is wrong with The System.  Consider children being taught about a hot stove.  A teacher gathers the children around a stove.  The teacher says, "This is a stove.  The stove is hot, so you shouldn't touch it."  The teacher then questions the students, "Why shouldn't you touch the stove?"  "Because it's hot," the students reply in unison.  The teacher then points out a pot of boiling water on one of the burners.  "This pot of water is on the stove, so you shouldn't touch it," the teacher says, and then asks, "Why shouldn't you touch the pot of water?"  "Because it's on the stove," the students reply.  The lesson continues on in this way, with the teacher presenting the students with information about what things are hot and then asking them to repeat it. 

The problem with this is that it fails to make the students think about how this information applies to them.  The children learn that they shouldn't touch the stove because it is hot, and that they shouldn't touch the pot of water because it is on the stove, but they may not make the connection that the pot of water may be hot, nor would they necessarily make the connection that if they touch the stove or the pot, they may get burned.  The students are not expected to actually think about what the information means and are not given the skills to do so.  They fail to understand what is meant by the stove being hot, why the things on the stove are hot, or what may happen if they touch them. 

A solution would be to let the students find out from experience that the stove is hot.  Let them feel the heat radiating from it.  Let them see a pot of water boil over the burner.  Let them feel the heat of the steam.  Even allow them to help boil the water.  Show them that if the stove is not on, the water won’t get hot.  Allow the students to make the connections between steam and heat.  The students would be told what was going on by the teacher, and at the same time they would be seeing the steam, feeling the heat, boiling the water themselves, learning the way they learn best.

This brings me to another point.  No matter how much the Department of Education would like them to be, students are not mindless automatons.  Students are individuals, and they learn in different ways.  Some learn better by seeing something done.   Others can learn just fine by being told something.  Still others learn best by experience.  Students learn at different speeds as well.  Some students learn things quickly.  Other students learn at a slower pace.  The System tries to teach as many students as possible while wasting as little time as possible.  The System establishes a set amount of time to teach certain things, a time it considers adequate to teach most of the students whatever is being taught.  The students that learn the material move on.  Those that don’t are separated from the rest of the class for as long as it takes for them to learn it.  While their peers continue to bigger and better things, they are permanently set back.  Meanwhile, the students that understand the material quickly are forced to wait for the rest of the class, holding them back from their full potential.  As a result, the students who learn faster end up being bored out of their minds, while the slower students end up being left behind, learning nothing.

There is a better way to teach students, which I call Optimal Learning.  I can’t explain it myself, so I’ll use a real life example.  UCLA psychologist Jim Stigler videotaped a Japanese schoolteacher teaching her fifth grade class.  At the beginning of the video, she quickly bows to the class and says, "Today we will be studying triangles."  She points out to the 44 children that they have already learned to find the area of a rectangle, and, after handing out a variety of different paper triangles, asks them to consider "the best way to find the area of a triangle."  The children spend 14 1/2 minutes discussing the problem with each other and manipulating the triangles with scissors and paste.  In the end, nine children take turns at the blackboard demonstrating how they reached their solutions.  52 minutes after she bowed to the students at the beginning of the lesson, the teacher had shown every student how every solution was related to the same formula: The area equals the base times the height, divided by two.  This way of teaching helps all the students to learn as the students who grasp the concept immediately have time to consider it and work with it, while the slower students get the advantage of having the same concept demonstrated in different ways, so they can understand it too.  All of the students were able to learn in the way that was best for them, whether it was by seeing, hearing, or doing.

The students that are most in danger in The System are not the ones that The System doesn’t teach well enough, they are the ones The System teaches too well: the overachievers.  These are the students that will do anything to please the teacher.  These students become the teacher’s favorites, and they are what The System calls perfect students.  They always do as they are told, always finish all their work ahead of time, and always accept the praise they receive as payment in full for their extra effort.  But, in their attempts to be what the teacher wants, they end up giving up something even more important . . . Themselves.

Richard Rodriguez, the son of Mexican immigrants in California, gave up his culture in order to get an education.  Rodriguez felt ashamed of his parents and their lack of education.  As a result, he looked up to his teachers instead.  His teachers were his only role models during his early schooling.  His desire at the time focused on reading and becoming like his teachers.  About his teachers, he said, “Any book they told me to read, I read—then waited for them to tell me which books I enjoyed.” (4^th-571)  He was so obsessed with being like his teachers that he gave up trying to be himself.  In the end, he realized that he was without a position or point of view.  While writing his dissertation to earn his PhD, he realized that he “knew too much (and not enough) to be able to write anything but sentences that were overly cautious, timid, strained brittle under the heavy weight of footnotes and qualifications.  I seemed unable to dare a passionate statement.  I felt drawn by professionalism to the edge of sterility, capable of no more than pedantic, lifeless, unassailable prose.” (4^th-584)  If Rodriguez had maintained his culture while pursuing his education, he would have the point of view that resulted from his culture.  Instead, his imitation of his teachers left him without a culture of his own.  Rodriguez abandoned his culture trying to be what the system wanted him to be, instead of simply trying to be himself.  Eventually, he found that he had been harmed by that.  He had become so focused on being what The System wanted him to be, that he had ended up without a mind of his own.

Instead of trying to make students into what it wants them to be, The System must abandon its policy of “We are the Department of Education.  You will be assimilated.  Resistance is futile.” and encourage students to be themselves.  It must help students look at themselves and their way of life so they don’t abandon it.  One way to do this is in the form of a class taught at Stanford University called Cultures, Ideas, Values. The class focused on North and South America and the cultures that have come together in those places.  With students from many different backgrounds and cultures, the class became what Mary Louise Pratt calls a “contact zone,” a place where people from two or more cultures come together, explaining their culture in order to make the others understand it, at the same time gaining understanding of the other cultures.   This class teaches the students cultural knowledge, not only of other cultures, but also of their own, and helps them to understand who they are.

Optimal Learning understands that students are different and seeks to promote those differences.  In order to do that, a class such as Cultures, Ideas, Values must be added to the curriculum of every education level.  This class utilizes a system of discussion developed by Paulo Freire called “problem-posing” education, in which there is no one single teacher.  Instead, there is an entire class of “teacher-students,” discussing things in order to understand them better.   In this case, the students and teacher would be engaged in discussion about each other’s cultures, providing the students with enough knowledge about themselves to give them their own perspective.  With this knowledge and perspective, students could then be given things to learn.  They would learn in the same manner as the Japanese students, with students given the opportunity to learn the way they learn best, and with the students who learn faster demonstrating to the slower students how they learned the information.  Once all the students had learned the information, they could discuss the uses for the information in Freire’s “problem-posing” system, discovering how the information applies to them and seeing how it would apply to others.

The students involved in Optimal Learning would no longer simply have information.  They would know how they could use the information in their lives and would be able to see how it relates to their culture.  They would also see how the information relates to other people and cultures.  The students would be very knowledgeable about their own culture, and would also know about other cultures.  They would be able to take criticism and would become more tolerant toward ideas that are in conflict with their own beliefs, thanks to the experience of being faced with those conflicts in the “contact zone” of the classroom.  They would still have their own perspective, but they would be able to see other perspectives as well.  In general, the students would be better individuals with skills to understand other people’s beliefs and to use their knowledge in their lives.

Education is not just the acquisition of knowledge.  Education involves being able to use one’s knowledge.  The students resulting from Optimal Learning would be able to do just that.  Allowing students to discover for themselves who they are would allow them to become better people in society, with the ability to see how things will affect them.  At the same time, letting them experience other cultures would give them the skills needed to understand ideas from other perspectives that they might not agree with.  In short, they would be more tolerant of others and better suited to solving problems they encounter.  If society could be made up of these kinds of people, many of the world’s problems would probably be solved.  Such a society would take a long time to attain, but it would bring many advantages along with it.  Perhaps, it is a worthwhile goal.

© Robert D. West: 2000, 2003.