IF
NOT THEN WHY? 4. CLOSED TIMELIKE WORLD LINES AND THE
ST. JOAN PROBLEM
B. Lukács
CRIP RMKI, H-1525 Bp. 114. pf. 49,
lukacs@rmki.kfki.hu
ABSTRACT
The (amply documented) curriculum vitae of Jeanne d’Arc
aka Joan of Arc aka La Pucelle de France cannot be made causally ordered, except
after very heavy, historically poorly supported and rather ambiguous excisions
resulting in a great variance in the “Histories” surviving the excisions. The
anomalies may or may not be related to Closed Timelike
Worldlines. Of course, physicist would not consider
the anomalies preserved by historians serious
indications for the existence of CTL’s.
1. ON FUTURE, PRESENT AND
PAST
My language is not Indo-European. In
This triality of tenses might have not been the original way of
organizing speech even for Indo-Europeans. While modern European descriptive
grammars developed under heavy classical Latin, suggesting the 3 tenses,
classical Greek has the aorist as well, showing similarities to both future and
past. And even in Latin the uses of present perfect vs. past imperfect is not as in Modern English and Mathematical Logic. Praesens perfectum may be used in
a story about the past without any
connection with present.
But now Indo-Europeans
of Europe do believe that they have 3 tenses, so they think in this paradigm.
Even Magyar grammars tell that the Magyar verb has 3 tenses; and indeed, if I
have to, I can give a nice agglutinative 3-tense paradigm. Let us take the verb
"see", which is "lát". The object
may be Determined/Indetermined; let us take Indet.,
because that is valid for intransitive verbs as well. As for person, the simplest
is Sg3, not having any ending. So:
Past |
Láta |
Present |
Lát |
Future |
Látand |
However
the Past form is just dying out, while the Future was always artificial,
frequented by orators under heavy Latin influence. Indeed, the
agglutinative Magyar ending –and/-end
comes clearly from the ending of the Latin Gerund ending -andus. Just now a Budapest Magyar
would translate "He saw" as "Látott",
and "He will see" as "Látni fog",
if not simply with the Present Tense. Now, "látott"
is "seen", so this is almost exactly the English Present Perfect “has
seen”, used as Present Perfect and
Past Imperfect, while "látni fog" is cca. "he starts to see"; compare this with the
English “he will see”≈”his will is to see”, also the Roumanian Future is
similar. In Modern Magyar tenses have secondary role; so we can speak in a very
sloppy manner about tenses, but if we want to be strict, we insert words of
meaning about temporal relations as e.g. "most = now", "után = after", "tegnap
= yesterday", "legutóbb = last time"
and so on, ad infinitum.
Now, if a language
clearly distinguishes Past, Present and Future, and no other tenses, then it
wires an idea into the society that the Past fundamentally differs from Future,
and Present forms their common border. In a society whose language has no
tenses the distinction is expected to be more obscure; and in one where the
tense system is quite different, the distinction may be different too. As for a
fictitious but very clear example see [1], where H. Beam Piper speaks about the
language of an alien civilisation which marks "tenses" on nouns, not
on verbs, "...spatial-temporal present, things here-and-now; spatial
present and temporal remote, things which were here at some other time; spatial
remote and temporal present, things existing now somewhere else; and
spatial-temporal remote, things somewhere else some other time". Then
these aliens learn easily Einsteinian Relativity from
arriving humans.
As for a language with
"unusual tenses", see Nenets. Nenets is the biggest Samoiedic
language in Northernmost Russia, 25,000. They are reindeer nomads. Samoiedic languages form the sister group of Finno-Ugrians
within the Uralic family, so Nenets is a relative to
Magyar, and the etymologies are clear. However both the counting words and
system and the tense system are quite different.
A possible explanation
is that such a "terminus technicus" is formalized
only when
the society needs it to become terminus technicus.
Indeed, exact timetables are necessary in a Neolithic village, but much less in
Palaeolithe. Now, speakers of Nenets
never were in the Neolith Proper (no agriculture and very rudimentary
domestication of animals; the reindeer is almost wild). As for Nenets tenses, [2] tells as
follows (my translation from Magyar): "In Nenets
the Past of ending -ś is opposed by an indeterminate Aorist, without
temporal ending. The temporal meaning of the verbs in Aorist depends on the
quality of action." Maybe in Palaeolithe the
expressions used to speak about events, real or planned, were circumscriptions;
maybe they concentrated on “aspects” as it is so in modern Slavic languages,
especially in Russian.
In societies arriving
first to Urban and then to Technical Revolutions a long social experience has
been accumulated about Causality. This terminus technicus
means at least 3 different observations:
C1) The Events have
Causes.
C2) The Causes
determine the Events.
C3) The Causes precede
the Events.
The first observation
is quite old, and sometimes it is believed that in
In the next 2000 years
Society forced the people to accept the above 3 points. People trying to live
without timetables and causality are generally unsuccessful, so this strategy
is rarer and rarer, via Socialisation. The success of Modern Industrial
societies proves that the above 3 points of Causality are indeed quite strong;
but such an argumentation cannot prove that they are absolute. Now let us see what is told by post-Aristotlean
Physics.
2. THE PHYSICS OF NEWTON
& AL.
In the period roughly bw. 1687 & 1905 in Physics
(excepting Thermodynamics, which is even now mainly Aristotelian, see [5]) the
dominant view was as follows. Space is 3 dimensional, Cartesian. Time goes
universally and homogeneously everywhere. The governing equations are mainly
differential ones, generally until second derivatives. Retardations,
relaxations, "memories" and such may also occur, and then we have
integral equations, but there are no known cases for advancement (future states on the rhs),
neither seriously suggested mechanisms for it. So: if we shall be successful
enough, we shall have the complete equations to describe the Future from Past; but for that of course the complete knowledge of Past
will also be necessary. The ideal was most approached by Celestial Mechanics.
The evolution of
Physics forked in 1905: on one side Quantum Physics appeared, on the other
Relativity.
3. STOCHASTIC BEHAVIOUR IN
QUANTUM PHYSICS
Quantum Physics is not
necessarily stochastic; but it may be, more or less. Even before the
Schrödinger Equation argumentations started if, e.g., Conservation Laws are true
for individual events or only in statistical sense. In some cases there were
good reasons for doubt, but e.g. in the case of beta decay the neutrino was
found more than 30 years after the doubt and the balance of energy, momentum
and angular momentum has been restored. Now it seems that in Quantum Mechanics
the picture is fully deterministic until
Measurement; but the Measurement is inherently stochastic. In a unification
of Quantization & Gravity it seems that a second stochastic phenomenon
would appear as well [6], [7]. We cannot know what will be "the final word
of Physics" about such stochastic characters. However there is no place
for Backward Action of Future in any known Quantum Formalism.
4. THE WORLD OF SPECIAL
RELATIVITY
In 1905 Einstein, mainly
from the negative result of the Michelson experiment, deduced that each
inertial observer has his own space and time, which can be got from the space and time of any other via the so called Lorentz transform. 3 years later Minkowski
showed how to unify space and time into a 4 dimensional objective entity, which
remains unchanged.
On this manifold the
history of a point or an ideal observer is a 1-dimensional world-line. On it the Present is an event, i.e. a 4-dimensional point, all event "below" it
belong to Past, all ones "above" to the Future; but there is no
"objective Present" valid for all worldlines.
In (Special) Relativity, being the manifold of 4-dimensional, in some sense
"the Future already exists", being on the map. This may be in
controversy with Quantum Physics; anyways it keeps the determinism of most
Newtonian disciplines.
It is very easy to
make a Postulate for C3. There is a double lightcone
of each event, the sum of world-lines of inertial trajectories arriving at and
departing from the Event (the event's lightcones).
Then you may require that all "real history" be worldlines
remaining inside the lightcone and going Futureward. Then the Past → Future sequence of a worldline of a permitted motion looks like Past →
Future sequences for all the other permitted worldlines.
If the Postulate
expresses physical laws, then no real motion above light velocity is possible.
The result is at least self-consistent because the inertial masses of mass
points go to ∞ as v→c. So asymptotically
the motion may touch the lightcone, but cannot
intersect it; even less could it turn Pastward. This
is just Causality property C3.
In Special Relativity
if somebody has well-founded data about Influence from Future, then he may
conjecture tachyons, particles always superluminal since t=-∞. However
until the well-founded data we may accept the Postulate. Then the consequence
is: No influence of Future.
5. MATTER GOVERNS GEOMETRY
In 1913 Albert Einstein
(born at
In 1913 General Relativity (verallgemeinerte Relativitätstheorie)
is ready [5]. There is a metric tensor gik(x)
in spacetime. The infinitesimal distance is written
as
ds2 = gikdxidxk (1)
(with automatic summation in all indices occurring twice,
above & below, which is the Einstein convention). If you uses
another coordinates, gik changes in a
prescribed way. There is a metric tensor even for an observer in the whirlpool
Maelstrom.
However, clearly gravitation influences gik.
Grossmann is not interested in this last equation which Einstein finds alone.
(Priority to Hilbert is not clear.) Einstein's Equation is
Gik
= -(8πG/c4)Tik (2)
where Gik
is a definite expression formed from gik,
linear in second derivatives, Tik is the
material energy-momentum tensor, and G is the Cavendish constant. So if you
know the matter distribution, you can calculate the geometry of the spacetime. However the matter moves just in this geometry,
so after you calculated the geometry, you must calculate the matter
distribution for the next moment, and then again. So it is not easy to get
exact solutions for spacetimes.
Still some people find some spacetimes; this is a profession. And then a substantial
part of them is acausal. So far I found cca. half a dozen acausal solutions of the Einstein Equation.
Acausal
means the following. We require (3), and also (2). (Local
causality.) So there are lightcones. And still
there are Closed Timelike Loops, i.e. you can go into
your Past by going always Forward to Future. (You can go to the East in Western
direction; the surface of the sphere is not simply connected.)
We do not like such solutions, and
generally throw them away after publishing them. However there are signals that
maybe we are too rigorous; and we cannot formulate a clear and strict mechanism forbidding the
formations of such spacetimes. Anyways, they are
solutions of the Gravitational Equations!
So now in all other disciplines of
Physics backward processes in time are ruled out; but in General Relativity
they are not. Not yet? Maybe. We do not like acausal processes. But still we cannot rule them out. See
the book [6]; and, of course, definitely my contribution in it.
6. CLOSED TIMELIKE LOOPS
AROUND US?
If the spacetime is such that CTL's can
reach us, then C3) cannot be generally true. The question in principle could be
investigated both empirically and theoretically. In a previous study [11] I
discussed the data about the so-called Malachy
Prophecy. Obviously a significantly too good prophecy would indicate CTL's; but nobody can be much surprised that my result was
equivocal. Of course, if the Antichrist appeared in the next few years that
would be almost decisive, but then we would not be too curious about CTL's anymore...
Now let us take a
purely theoretical General Relativity approach for a while. CTL's
can appear at least on 3 ways, so the questions are:
Q1) Are somewhere
"eternal" CTL's?
Q2) Are CTL-generating
geometries formed in gravitational collapses?
Q3) Can CTL-generating
domains be formed without gravitational collapse?
Answer to Q1)
According to the
present state of art, topological "defects", wormholes, strings
&c. probably did appear in Big Bang (meaning that at cca.
Planck time when General Relativity decoupled from Quantum
Physics).
Obviously such regions of Planck scale are rather unimportant. If these domains
have expanded, they may be macroscopic, but we did not yet observe e.g. light
propagation anomalies in the neighbourhood of the Solar System, and even in the
galaxy dust and gases disturb conclusive survey farther than c. 5,000 ly. In principle the distance is unimportant, but in practice
the most CTL would avoid us if the "anomalous" region is far away.
Answer to Q2)
There are some theoretical indications that
gravitational collapses may indeed generate CTL's. We
investigated somewhat this question earlier [12], [13], [14]; here I repeat
only the Schlagwörte of the analysis, very loosely.
A gravitational
collapse goes until singularity ("black hole") only if the initial
mass of the collapsing star is "well" above the Schwartzschild
limit, 1.2 solar mass for Fe56 (some mass ejection is expected).
Putting the limit for the initial mass to 2 solar mass, roughly 1 gravitational
collapse is expected yearly, maybe as an SN.
We know an exact
stationary, axisymmetric external solution, the Kerr
one; and unicity theorems tell us that the other
possible stationary axisymmetric external solutions
are even more strange [15]. So we may hope that the Kerr solution is relevant
for answering Q2); indeed Tipler told (true, in 1974)
that "...Kerr black holes probably exist somewhere, possibly in the center of our galaxy".
Now, the Kerr solution
does have a ring singularity (infinite curvature) in the plane of rotation, at
the distance a from the center
a = L/Mc (3)
and a strongly curved toruslike
region of width m around
m = GM/c2 (4)
If a<m, the singularity is covered by 2 horizons, if a>m, then
the singularity is naked.
A combination of
careful astronomical observations about stellar masses, radii and rotational
velocities and hand-waving arguments about ejection in the collapse lead to the
result that for the majority of collapses not stopping as neutron stars end in
a>m. So (although the unicity is formally
questionable then) let us take the case of naked singularity; in the opposite
case the CTL would still be present but the argumentation would be more
complicated.
The line element is
ds2
= (1-2mr/A)dt2
– 4marA-1sin2θdφdt – (r2+2ma2rA-1sin2θ+a2)sin2θdφ2 – Adθ2 –
- A(r2-2mr+a2)-1dr2
A ≡ r2+a2cos2θ (5)
where the two angular coordinates
are cyclic. Now, first take a "motion"
dr
= dθ = dt = 0
Then ds2 = gφφdφ2,
and
gφφ = -(r2+2ma2rA-1sin2θ+a2)sin2θ (6)
is positive in the neighbourhood of the ring at
small enough negative r’s. (In the plane of the ring θ=π/2.) After 2π
travel in φ we are at the startpoint, so travels
around the ring near the singularity can build up CTL's.
Of course, it would be nice to be able to prove that indeed the external
solution approaches Kerr as time goes by (but what else, being Kerr the unique
stationary axisymmetric solution), that the Kerr
solution is stable (nothing is exactly sure in the presence of acausal orbits) & so on; research is going even now.
But even at the present state of art, the acausality
of the Kerr solution is at least an indication.
Answer to Q3)
Let us start from
something at least illustrating a finite CTL-forming domain. In 1924 Cornelius Lánczos found an exact solution inside an infinitely long
rotating dust cylinder [17]. (From the name you can see that he started from
Hungary, as Marcel Grossman (from Budapest) and Mileva
Marity, Frau Einstein (from Titel);
for the variety, Lánczos from Székesfehérvár.)
Then the solution had been forgotten and van Stockum
rediscovered it [18], but he was able to match the external solution as well. CTL's arise if the rotational velocity at the surface is
>c/2.
While the dust
interior is strange (but possibly not too important) and the infinite length is
rather an idealisation, the c/2 rotational velocity is viable. If we could
argue that in the middle region the CTL would remain with a finite but very
long cylinder, we would be ready.
Tipler's
opinion was more or less this in 1974 [16]: "This suggests that a finite
rotating cylinder would also act as a time machine.".
In 1976, however, he himself showed that the limiting behaviour is more
complicated [19]. As far as one can interpret the rather mathematical Theorems,
maybe there is something "anomalous" at the two ends which cannot be
constructed, except if "exotic matter" is applied too, where now
matter is exotic if the dominant energy positivity
condition is violated. For a fluid the dominant energy positivity
condition [20] would be
ε ≥ 0 (7)
p ≤ ε ≤
-p
but now probably the proper matter is not a
fluid.
Research is going.
Obviously in this moment we cannot make a blueprint for a time machine, but if
we found some exotic matter... Note that violating weak, dominant or strong
energy positivity may be strange and exotic, but we
do not know a proof that it would be impossible. Lobo & Crawford [21]
refers to the Casimir effect. Others [22], [23] claim
that energy positivity conditions can be violated for
nonquantum relativistic matter. And so on.
7. THE PRESENT IS THE PAST
OF THE FUTURE
Time machines are
either possible for the future science or not; we cannot yet prove any of the
two. But if they will be built in the future, we may meet the travellers now; or might have met them in our past.
So until the theoretical work is not sufficiently deep, we may hope in observation, just as in astronomy.
As an
interdisciplinary study on the borderline of History and General Relativity, we
can review Historical Mysteries/Paradoxes. If a strange historical event is
strange because it was influenced from Future, then indeed Past Causes are insufficient to
understand it. Of course, anybody may say (and many physicists would) that we
do not yet understand History well enough; then it is premature This is quite possibly true; nevertheless let us try. Maybe we learn something.
Of course, in the following
Chronology a Fact is a fact in historical
sense: namely a Source mentions it, unless the Source was written by a
madman or a collector of folk-tales, or the Source is a documented
falsification. Obviously some items in the Chronology will contradict each
other; but this is not unheard in History. The sheer mass of Contradictions
will be a signal that Something Is Wrong; and since I do not try to prove anything, only Nontriviality, we may then remain with this Chaos.
The Chronology is the chronology of
the St.
Joan Event. A surprising young girl enters History in 1429, performs
really unexpected and very improbable deeds, then
exits. After some time somebody again enters who claims to be the same and is
accepted as the same by close relatives, friends, war
comrades & such. The old and the new actresses may or may not be the same;
both solutions need forceful distortion of Common Sense. And again…
I do not presuppose anything; so I will not distinguish the
heroines as Joan1, Joan2 &c., but here I express the necessity of Caution.
If a woman calls herself Joan the Maid and the contrary has not been proven
then I call her Joan the Maid (or Maid of Orleans, or such), but I do not want
to indicate that there were no other Maid Joans. That
step belongs to historians.
I included each important event for
which I found one or more Sources. Some of these are mistakes & such, of
course.
I must state that my special
technical language about the historical events may be unusual: perhaps Will
Shakespeare, The Bard, could sympathise with it. But the situation in the first
third of the XVth century was very, very different
from the present one. Looking back from Modern Times we are burdened with some postconceptions. E.g.
Namely, the Troyes
Agreement, from 1420, was valid. The Agreement, signed by the English and
French Kings (Henry V & Charles VI), the French Queen (Isabel of Bavaria)
and a number of French Dukes stated very important things. E.g. that the
Dauphin (Charles) is a bastard, so of course he must not inherit. (Of course,
he is a very august bastard, maybe the son of Louis of Orléans
and the Queen, so he will get some provinces at the end; his behaviour will determine which and how much.) In
order to solve the French Problem, the English King takes the responsibility,
hard work &c., and marry the daughter of the
French King, Catherine. So after the inevitable but hopefully far death of
Charles VI Henry V will be crowned as French King after him the son of him
& Catherine, so uniting the Two Dynasties, and then so in aeternum.
In
So from 1420 he was not Heir Apparent, as we saw, the Troyes
Agreement explicitly excluded him from inheriting the Throne. He is, more or
less, a Pretender. The final stage of the Hundred Years War, after the death of
Charles VI, from legal viewpoint can be summarized as follows:
The King of France is Henry, the
son-in-law of the deceased (and mad) Charles VI. (After his
untimely death his minor son, also Henry.) But in
So in 1429 an
As for name forms, I shall generally
use Modern English forms. So Jeanne d’Arc, national
saint of Modern France is Joan of Arc; because this study is written in
English. Sometimes I write rather Jeanne for style; but the two forms are synonymes.
As for citations, my French is very
weak, so I weighted the sources. For any statement there is at least one source
which I used in full depth, but there are, indeed, French texts included mainly
for the sake of French readers. At any definite item the leftmost citation is
which I used in maximal extent; either because it is English, or the most
detailed about the particular event or both.
The Chronology amply refers 2
Trials. Trial 1 is the 1431 trial, led by P. Cauchon,
Bishop of Beauvois, in
The Trial 2 was held in 1455/6 in
8. THE CHRONOLOGY
And now let us see the Extended Joan
Chronology. For us it starts c.1412; and at the present state of History it
fades away in 1457…
The period is more than half a
millennium in the past, but the age (in
First
Stage (D'Arc):
01 c. 1412:
Birth of Joan (Jeanne, Jehane
&c.) D'Arc in Domrémy at the border of Lotharingy & France.
At the
02 c. 1425:
The Voices start.
According to Joan's statement on
Trial 1 [25], [26], she was then 13. Some rather prefer 12 [27].
03 May 1428:
Joan at R. de Baudrincourt, Vaucoulours, first time.
He refuses to send her to Charles,
the Pretender [25], [27], [26].
04 Feb. 1429:
As above, second time.
De Baudricourt
first refuses, but later agrees. ("The miracle of
egg-laying"?) Joan gets male attire, a horse, a sword and, with a
few companions, starts to Chignon, where the Pretender keeps his court [25], [27],
[26].
05 Bw. 12th and 23rd Febr., 1429:
On the way to Chignon.
Marguerite de Touroulde
states on Trial 2 that companions Bertrand de Poulengy
& Jean de Metz felt carnal desire for Jeanne; however they both deny it [25],
[27], [26].
06 c.
Joan meets the Pretender.
Joan recognises the Pretender. (It
is not clear if that was difficult or not.) She speaks with him without third
party, and may or may not reveal secrets. There are witnesses that she urges
him to permit her to lead him to
07 Just after
The
Priests examine Joan to decide if
she is good Catholic. Rumours are extant about a Poitiers
Record, but it is not extant. Joan gets arms, but she is not content with the
sword and wants another. She tells that the Voices (one of them is St.
Catherine) told her about a sword buried behind the altar of the
08
Start to Orléans.
One of the companions is Marshal
Gilles de Rais, later Bluebeard [25], [27], [26].
09
Joan enters Orléans.
She rides a white horse; on her left
the Bastard of Orléans [27].
10 4th May, 1429:
The prophecy.
Sir John Falstaff arrives at the
walls. Joan states that Orléans will be free in 5
days. Success at Saint-Loup [25], [27], [26].
11 8th May, 1429:
Victory of Joan.
After several clashes, where the Orléans forces are victorious and Joan bravely fights, the
Anglo-Burgundian forces leave Orléans'
neighbourhood. The Armagnacs have kept the bridgehead
N. of the
12
Victories towards Gien
The
13
Start to
On the way the Armagnacs
capture Troyes & Châlons.
The brothers of Joan, Peter & John, accompany the army at
14
Coronation.
15 21st July
On the way to
Several
16
Unsuccessful siege of
The Burgunds
defend
D'Arc family ennobled.
It can be inherited both on male and
on female sides [25], [27], [26].
18
Burgundia ascendans.
Philip the Good, Duke of Burgundy,
marries Isobel of Portugal. The Burgunds occupy
several
The resurrection of the Lagny
Baby.
Joan starts to help Compičgne. On the way, in Lagny,
Joan prays for a baby who "was dead for 3 days". The baby makes some
noises, is baptized, and then dies "again" [25], [27], [26]
20 23rd May, 1430:
The Compičgne
failure.
On 22 Joan secretly enters the city
under siege. Then she leads a sally, and is captured, together with her
brother, Peter [25], [27], [26].
21 Summer of 1430:
The
Joan is kept in the said tower, in a
forest. The tower is 60-70 feet high. On Trial 1 Joan states that she almost
fled once. Aimond de Macy tries to catch her tits,
but she pushes away his hand. Finally the Burgunds
sell Joan to the English [25], [27], [26]
22 c.
The Jump.
When taking airs on the top of the
tower, Joan jumps. She cannot get away, but she is completely unhurt. On Trial
1 she states that the Voices were against a jump [27], [25], [26].
Arrival at
The English troops take Joan to
24
Start of Heresy Examination.
The Duke of Normandy/King of
25 9th Jan.-24th May, 1431:
The First Trial
The
26
Papal Succession
Since Pope Martin V died (on 20th
Feb.), there is a convention in
27 27th May, 1431:
The Relapse
Joan again takes male dress. So she
relapsed to heresy. The Court transfers her to the city magistrate [25], [27], [26].
28 30th May, 1431:
The Stake
The executioner burns the sinning
So the First Stage ended with the
burning of Joan; the ashes go into the
Second
stage (Claude)
29 Second half of 1431:
The Normand Chronicle
Various rumours start.
"...Finally she, or a similar woman, was burnt on the stake; opinions vary..."
[25], [29], [30], [26], [31], [32].
30
Armistice
Burgund-Armagnac
negotiations; 6 year armistice [25]
31 June 1433:
High position people in the
32
Burgund-Armagnac Negotiations.
The negotiations start in Nevers; Rene of Angevin is
mediator. The English protest [25].
33
Postumus
Letter?
The city of
34
One Warlord Exits.
Death of Duke
Bedford, Governor of King Henry VI in
35
French Peace.
The
36 1436:
The Festivities of Joan.
Gilles de Rais,
the Bluebeard, finishes the passion-play Fčtes of Yeanne d'Arc [28].
37
Arthur de Richemont,
Connétable of France, enters
38 20th May, 1436:
The Maid Reappears.
From the Chronicle of St. Thibaud of Metz [25], [30], [33], [26], [34] (in Delepierre’s translation):"...on the 20th
day of May of the aforementioned year
came the maid Jeanne who had been in France, to La Grange of Ormes, near St. Prive, and was
taken there to confer with any one of the sieurs of
Metz, and she called herself Claude; and on the same day there came to see her
there her two brothers, one of whom was a knight, and was called Messire Pierre, and the other ‘petit Jehan,’
a squire, and they thought that she had been burnt, but as soon as they saw her
they recognised her and she them. And on Monday, the 21st day of the
said month, they took their sister with them to Boquelon,
and the sieur Nicole, being a knight, gave her a
stout stallion of the value of thirty francs, and a pair of saddle-cloths; the sieur Aubert Boulle,
a riding-hood; the sieur Nicole Grouget,
a sword; and the said maiden mounted the said horse nimbly, and said several
things to the sieur Nicole by which he well
understood that it was she who had been in France; and she was recognized by
many tokens to be the maid Jeanne of France who escorted King Charles to Rheims, and several declared that she had been burnt in
Normandy, and she spoke mostly in parables.” Anatole
39
Orléans
Restores the Contact.
Coeur-de-Lys,
Herold of Orléans, is sent
to Arlon to the Maid of Orléans.
He gets 6 livres of
40 Early Summer of 1436:
Internecine Struggle.
In the Diocese of Treves two candidates are contending for the see, the
candidate of the chapter, and the nominee of the Pope. The Maid supports the
Chapter. Therefore the Inquisitor General of
41
Good News.
Little John, brother of the Maid
(Jean de Lys), arrives at Orléans,
[25], where, for the news, gets 10 pints of wine, 12 hens, 2 goslings and 2
leverets [35]; thence he goes to Loches, to the King [25].
42 End of October, 1436
The Marriage of the Maid.
The Maid marries Sir Robert des Armoises in Arlon [25], [30], [26];
the Cologne Inquisitor believes that this happened to thwart him [35]. [25] dates the marriage to 7th Nov., but the more detailed [35]
tells that 7th Nov. is the date of a contract of estate: the young couple sells
one quarter of the lordship of Haraucourt to Collard
de Failly and his wife [33], [26]. Lots
of signatures and seals [35], definitely the signatures of both des Armoiseses.
43 1437-1439:
Two Children.
The Armoises
couple produces two children [26], [35], [34]. Nider
believes that the marriage was not too successful [35], [36].
44 Second half of July, 1439:
Banquet in Orléans.
Jeanne des Armoises,
ex-Maid of Orléans, arrives at Orléans,
spends there two weeks, a great dinner is given for her honours; data are in the
account books of the city [35], [30], [33], [26], [37]. She leaves before the
banquet (see however [28], goes to
45 Summer of 1440:
Witchcraft; Confession.
Jeanne de Armoises
is followed by Jean de Siquemville as Captain of
Gilles de Rais [35], [39]; Gilles de Rais will be arrested soon for witchcraft, pedophily &c; the trial starts in September [28].
Jeanne des Armoises is the neighbourhood of
46 August 1440:
Discord.
Disturbances are threatening in
47 October 1440:
Is God Again Dead?
Gilles de Rais
confesses his crimes and sins, including the killing of 800 (!) children. After
5 years Charles VII annuls his debts and issues a document where no crimes are
mentioned but military honours After 5 more years his daughter gets back the estates.
At the place of the execution a fountain is erected, visited by pregnant women.
48 1443:
Donation.
Peter, brother of the Maid, gets the
49 1449:
Again a Death.
Jeanne des/Joan of Armoises dies and is buried in Pulligny,
Lotharingy, within the local church [43]. On the
inner wall a plaque showed the place of the grave until 1890; in that year the
beatification process started so the plaque “was needlessly removed” [43].
The Second Stage again ended with
the death of the heroine; but now there was a proper burial.
Third
stage (Sermaise)
50 1449:
The Maid in Sermaise.
Sermaise
is near to Domrémy, and a brother of the mother of
the Maid (Isabelle, but originally not Romée, but Vouthon) lived there. He died in 1476, and then a legal
process was made for the heritage [29], [44]. Witness Jehan
le Montigueue, born c. 1406, states that in 1449 a
woman arrived, in male attire, and called herself Jeanne le Pucelle.
She feasted with the Vouthons, as she did too with
the Maid's brother, Jean du Lys.
51
Charles VII of
52 1449-1452:
Merry Sermaise.
Perinet
(Henri) de Vouthon, the carpenter, born in 1424,
states in 1476 that in his adult age he often feasted at his father's table
with Jean & Pierre du Lys
and their sister, the Maid. Jehan Guillaume, born in
1400, states that he saw at the Vouthons the two du Lys brothers with a woman who
called herself the Maid (La Pucelle), but he does not
know if she was the true Maid [29], [44].
53 March 1450:
Rehabilitation?
King Charles VII had a strong ally
in 1429, who, however, is a condemned heretic, which is no good for the royal
house. So he intends to ask the Church to revisit Joan's trial. Preliminary
inquiry starts [25].
54 1450:
Troubles in
Cashiered men-at-arms make troubles. The Jack Cade revolt in
55 1451:
Aquitane
is French.
The Bastard of Orléans,
now Count of Dunois, takes first Blaye,
then
56 1452:
Tennis at Sermaise.
Simon Fauchard,
cure of Notre Dame de Sermaise, meets a woman dressed
as a youth, who tells that she would like to play a tennis party. They do it,
and afterwards the woman tells: “Say boldly that you have played tennis with
the Maid." Simon Fauchard is happy; the woman
goes to the house of the Vouthons [35], [29], [44].
57 2nd May, 1452:
To Correct the Errors.
Guillaume d'Estoteville,
the nuntio of the Pope in France, who tried to
mediate for an English-French peace, but now the war is practically over, meets
Jean Bréhal, Dominican, General Inquisitor, and they
start an examination about the problems of the Rouen trial of the Maid (in
1431). It soon turns out that the First Trial was irregular, unfair &c. [25].
58 1452:
A Richard of
Richard of York is Pretender albeit Henry VI still lives (even if mad).
59 1454:
Justice for the D'Arcs!
Bréhal,
General Inquisitor, discusses a second Trial in
60 1455:
Reds & Whites.
The War of Roses starts in
61
Roma Locuta.
The new Pope, Callixt
III, issues a permission to the du Lys family to ask for a Second Trial.
62
The Tears of a Mother.
Isabelle Vouthon/Romée/d'Arc
and her two sons, Pierre & Jean du Lys (without their beloved sister, continuous companion
until 1452) in the Notre Dame (of
We see that the Maid vanished from
the Sermaise Stage in 1452; no burial, however. Obviously
the du Lys family was
prudent enough not to advertise a living Maid when the nuntio
and the Inquisitor General just started to discuss the rehabilitation of their
murdered sister, the Maid [28]. True, there seems to be a rudimentary
Fourth
Stage (
63 1457:
Good King René Is Merciful.
In 1457 Good King René of
This is the raw material for us.
Obviously historians may know some other details as well; for me and for other
physicists this is more than enough.
9. AN ANALOGY: ON THE DIMENSIONALITY OF SPACE
Lots of physicists are more or less
convinced that the physical space is of 3 dimensions (space-time is of 4). What
does such a statement mean?
This was a favourite problem of the
late L. Jánossy; stepson and probably natural son of
philosopher Gy. Lukács. It is interesting that, while he did know that the
dimensionality and the metric structure are something to be determined from
observations, he was quite sure that the dimensionality is 3 and the geometry
is Cartesian. I believe the certainty came from something he called Political
Conviction but really it was Superstition.
Maybe the problem was most
professionally formulated in [46] & [47]; but that degree of abstraction
will not be needed here. Consider a space of N dimensions, with a Cartesian
metric. First assume that you can measure spatial distances without any error.
Take m points. There are m(m-1)/2 independent
distances between the points. On the other hand, the m points have mN coordinate values. If m>2N+1, then the equations for
the distances are overdetermined. If still there are
solutions, then the smallest such N is the dimensionality of the space.
Now come
the technical problems. E.g. maybe we are not quite sure about the same units
in different directions. An example is the British nautical units. Along the
surface the nautical mile is the distance unit: 1 arcminute
along a latitude half-circle. But vertically the unit is the fathom = 6 feet,
or a multiple, say the cable-length. But this means N extra independent scale
factors. Then there is the fact that we measure all the distances with some
errors, say, all of them with the same error Σ. Then we take points much
farther apart than Σ, take a few more points and then instead of the
algebraic equations we arrive at a statistical problem of χ2
type. So then we get an answer that it is sure for 99.99765 % that the number
of dimensions is not higher than 5; and incorporating 7 more points the
certainty is improved to 99.9999938 %. And so on.
The analogy with the observational
check of causality of History is clear even if not yet fully operational. We
should be able to causally order the historical events; the errors are the
errors of the historical records, the falsifications of the records and maybe
our erroneous ideas how History works. Very probably the dimensionality of Time
is 1 (see however [10]).
Now: can the Chronology of the
previous Chapter be causally ordered? The answer is obviously: No, unless the
errors (errors of records, deliberate falsifications & such) are very
frequent and/or very large. Obviously, History’s duty would be to filter out
the errors; She works, but I am not satisfied.
In the next Chapter I am going to
discuss some choices to causally
order the Chronology. Obviously we cannot discuss all the possible corrections,
since here Stage 1 has 28 events, Stage 2 21, Stage 3 13, and Stage 4 1. So the
simplest assumption that there is a single event falsified from thin air has 63
different realization, and if we assume 2 such nonexistent
events amongst the 63 ones, the number of different possibilities go up to 1953.
However the problems will be quite explicit even in a partial discussion.
10. SOME ATTEMPTS FOR CAUSAL ORDERING
The roughest problem comes from the
identities of the heroines of the different Stages. Henceforth I assume No
Miracles. While this rigid viewpoint is not always trivial for Saints, in our
case it is not in discord with the opinion of the Catholic Church. Namely in
the beatification and canonization processes of St. Joan of Arc only XXth century miracles were used (disappearances of
illnesses after prayers to Joan & such) and our Chronology is confined to
the [1412,1457] AD interval. So the Church has not yet declared any opinion
about such “miracles” as the Vaucoulours Egglaying, the Sword of Fierbois,
the Lagny Baby or the Beaurevoir
Jump. The No Miracles standpoint is necessary, because you could not well
distinguish an Influence of Closed Timelike Loop and
a Miracle.
The majority of historians (but not
all!) chop away Stages 2-4, and tell that in the later stages
impostors/adventuresses personified Joan. This is quite possible, and such
personifications amply happened concerning other worthies of History. However
this will not be simple now.
Let us, however, note first, that
Stage 4 is easily removable. From the scant information about its Jeanne des Sermaises no extra problem appears if we assume that this
Jeanne in 1457 is really an impostor; except that: why Good King René was so merciful?
After neglecting Stage 4 we have 5
different logical possibilities. We may try to deal with the same heroine in
Stages 1, 2 & 3, the same in 1 & 2, 1 & 3 or 2 & 3 and another
in the third stage, or 3 different ones for the 3 stages. Of course, by
definition, the “true Joan” must appear in Stage 1. In itself still any of the
Stages may contain a moderate number of errors. Now let us see the 5 possible
scenarios.
1=2=3 posits insurmountable problems
for first view, namely 2 deaths which is generally irreversible, in 1431 &
1449, so let us proceed backwards.
1≠2≠3≠1 is not
easy either. Namely at 20th May, 1436, when the young Claude appears
in Metz and claims to be Joan, the Maid, the brothers of Joan are informed.
They arrive and the 2 brothers and Claude/Joan exeunt together. Afterwards the
brothers accept Joan. And similarly, the Joan, who is seen for 3 years in Sermaise at various times, does not visit the Vouthons, nephews of the “true Joan” (the old Vouthon is the younger brother of Isabelle Romée/Vouthon, the
mother of the Maid of Orléans) alone, but
sometimes with her one or both brothers. So the Joan of the latter stages
cannot be an impostor without the active
help of the du Lys brothers
who are the brothers of the “true
Joan”.
The rather lame answer is that the
brothers “wanted something”, say extra money from the King, so they accepted
the impostor, and shared the money. However all the 3 children of the d’Arc family were made nobles in 1429, so further social
ascent was ruled out. Of course, the brothers may have made debts; but such a
personification may have been rather dangerous. If the King becomes informed
that the heroine of his coronation returned from her grave, he will investigate
it, and he finds out the personification, and then…
Interestingly enough the King had
been informed but in first approximation he
did not do anything at all. I do not know why. Of course, there would be a
possibility that the King participates in the hoax, from some political reason
which we do not understand. But, apart from the fact that an unexplained and
unproven hoax is a poor explanation, we saw that at the end the King organised
the Second Trial, with lots of witnesses about the outstanding nature and martyrdom of Joan (back in 1431).
And the same problem arises if we
believe that only one of the stages contained an impostor. The du Lys brothers accepted Joan in
both Stage 2 and Stage 3.
Then we really remain with 1=2=3.
But there are two deaths in 1431 & 1449!
As I told already once, I do not
want and cannot prove anything, only
to demonstrate that the causal ordering of the Joan Chronology is a nontrivial
task. Now, the remaining 1=2=3 identification needs one of two unorthodox
assumptions: either Closed Timelike Loops reaching
Earth (by which Future can form Past, for any reason the far Future may have,
by personifying shepherdesses & such; namely Joan, who, according to
numerous witnesses, was born and raised in Domrémy,
but when got a stallion, and arms, immediately was able to use it almost as
well as a knight), or a sequence of very clever and very complicated tricks.
While the first possibility is something we could not fully understand, so I
will spend only a few sentences with it, later, in Chap. 12. The second
possibility is quite familiar for everybody, from detective stories, history
lessons & so.
Independently of the problem of
Stage 2 after death, Stage 1 in itself contains lots of serious problems. I
mention only a few.
The heavy cavalry service in Middle Ages was something which needed
years of practice first. The rider was encased in metal, plus had a heavy
shield. While surely Joan got arms as light as was possible, she had no
previous possibility to practice. The usual (again lame) explanation assumes
that she rode some horses in the meadows besides Domrémy.
While this is quite possible, the difference is big enough to sit arbitrarily
on an old mare and to ride a military stallion in full arms. Sackville-West
detects this problem of solving par excellence military problems without
military experience [27].
In the army Joan exhibits surprising
military inclinations and abilities. At the beginning of her military career
she is seen to participate in a spear-throwing match with captains; something
she could not practice in Domrémy (
With a young peasant girl living
always Domrémy the story of the Fierbois
Sword (just after
Obviously Joan had knowledge about
things which she should not have had. I leave the problem at this stage, and
turn to the less unorthodox but also not too easy explanation: a sequence of
clever tricks. Do not have too high hopes, however.
Lots of authors tried with the
hypothesis that Joan was not the daughter of Jacques d’Arc
and Isabelle Romée/Vouthon, but came from royalty.
The simplest explanation is that a highborn bastard from Louis d’Orléans & Isabelle de
Let us then continue. Say, an
Now, this problem was handled
repeatedly in Joan stories for more than half a millennium. The general pattern
is that the
Namely,
Now the situation is hopeless enough
but Delepierre at least can invent an explanation
[30]. He believes that Bishop Cauchon worked for both
parties; and indeed, after 1435, when Charles VII occupied the place where Cauchon lived, the Bishop was leaved unharmed. True, [43]
explains this courteous behaviour with the truly Christian soul of Charles VII,
but some previous service is a more probable explanation.
Still, the saving of Joan would not
be possible without some English participation, and indeed Joan is absent until
at least
After 1440 practically nothing is
heard about Joan; maybe she is at home, in matrimonial satisfaction. And then death and burial in Pulligny in
1449 [43].
In our only surviving 1=2=3 causal
scenario of course this death must also be faked; and this is not a real problem
compared to the 1431 one. There hundreds of witnesses observed the stake, now
maximally a handful of servants. But the question is: why? Let us assume that sieur Robert des Armoises is dead. (The authors generally believe so.) Then
why does the widow not remain at the estate?
We do not know. Maybe the heroine
likes new adventures. For any case the “death” is more or less synchronised
with the French occupation of
During Stage 2 Joan was a wife of a
knight. Now it seems as if she had no income, no company except brothers &
nephews, and no home!
This Stage 3 again ends in a proper
time, when Guillaume d'Estoteville, the nuntio, and Jean Bréhal, General Inquisitor,
start an examination about the problems of the
As for completeness' sake, I mention
the theory that the Sounds, whom Joan identified as Sts. Catherine &
Marguerite were in fact "spirits" in the spiritist
sense, so spirits of dead or spirits "from another plane of
existence" or such. Maybe the most detailed work is [51], but [27] also
likes the idea. The interaction with an Otherworld might explain some problems
as e.g. the information about the Fierbois Sword; but
this would be only formally a No Miracles standpoint what I promised above.
As we have seen, this was the
surviving causal scenario. But full with holes, not too satisfactory, and we do
not really understand the story.
The next Chapter discusses a
practical difficulty about selecting the "really true" Joan story.
11. JOAN OF ARC AND MODERN POLITICS
Joan of Arc's action (at least until
the
However if all the intellectuels were for the Une
& Indivisible France, they had to find other points to fight on. So in 1762
Voltaire published La Pucelle d'Orléans
[52]. The comic epics is bawdy and Joan is not heroic
at all, but something other.
Now, obviously, Voltaire's general
intellectual activity against Authority, and especially ecclesialistic
authority made for him Joan a target. Observe that his Mahomet could not be
published anywhere today without the danger of assassinations. So: he doubted
her miracles, the Church was for Joan, so he wrote
something against Joan.
Then came
the Revolution. Obviously the Capetings were hated;
it was possible that Joan had been a good girl (she fought against Perfidious
Albion), but what if not? But the Consulate changed the situation: obviously
Consul (later First Consul) Bonaparte will not be angry except if a book is
Anglophile or is written against him. This is the time when Caze
formulates his idea of Princess Joan first as a drama; but the idea is quite
conform with the Bourbon Restauration too.
In 1830 a revolution ousts the main branch of the
Bourbons, but the
Let us see three examples about Joan
the Maid as the Cause in French Party Politics between 1871 & 1914 very
briefly.
Royalists agitate for more and more
Joan of Arc statues; and if a new statue has been erected, then they organise
thither processions with bouquets, banners &c.; because Joan died for
France & the King. Then obviously Republicans need another rally point, so
they erect a statue for Dolet. He was a printer,
executed in 1546 maybe because he denied the immortality of Soul. Also he
printed Calvin &c. (Of course Royalists claimed that he had been executed
for murdering Guilleaume Compaing.
Maybe; but the murder happened 10 years earlier.) So he had been the victim of
Church & Intolerance, and Republicans made their meetings at his statue. [53]
summarizes the popular actions of the 2 sides against
each other. Observe that Joan's beatification process started in 1890 [43]; she
was finally beatified in 1909, but canonization continued.
A. France, outstanding novelist and
Republican, wrote an extensive history book (not novel) about the Maid [35].
For me it does not seem anti-Johannist (not even
anti-Royalist), but I am not French. Royalists claimed that he denigrated the
Maid. Then he wrote the Island of Penguins, a historical parody, and in it he
invented St. Orberose, a penguin female who had her
career with female tools and much later had been canonized; an obvious echo of
Voltaire's La Pucelle.
The third example is the Thalamas Affair, which lasted 5 years. Thalamas
was Republican; a history teacher of the Condorcet
Lyceum. There he gave the students the duty of composing a historical essay.
One student claimed in his essay that Joan's "crusade" was divinely
inspired. Thalamas opposed this view, and later the
teacher and the student remembered somewhat differently who was said what about
the Maid. But obviously Thalamas did not regard the
student's essay as a historical one; and he was rather sceptical about the
Maid's visions. Surely he would not have said such things if he had been
Royalist. As the scandal went on, he published a brochure of the price of 60
centimes [54] about his opinia about the Maid, and
according to some rumours in his lectures he went so far that he denied the
sanctity of the Maid on the grounds that surely the English raped her in the
prison and then how to canonize her [55], [56]? While the argument is completely
laughable in the knowledge of Canon Law, Thalamas was
more moderate than Voltaire & France but the scandal became bigger and
bigger. Pro- and anti-Thalamists happily fought on
the streets of
So sources found and published first
bw. 1871 & 1914 need
some caution. I very much sympathize with Thalamas'
Sorbonne lecture in 1909 about teaching history where he emphasized [57] that
the duty of the teacher is to remain at Absolute Truth, and to tell about myths
that they are myths. Also, he seems to be correct when he states that there are
incorrect statements in Joan's curriculum vitae. I think,
my Chronology in Chapter 8 is a demonstration that indeed there is some problem
with the Joan biographies. However, when I. Maléter supports
Thalamas in the opinion that Joan was not a good
captain and her visions were "the hallucinations of a hysteric female"
[57], I must note that all the witnesses seem to confirm that Joan was a
competent captain, and mere hysterics generally are not successful in hopeless
situations of countries. The problem is just: how was this possible? I do not
know, and I am sure that lots of "facts" are falsified; but the
solution of a problem cannot be found if, from intellectual laziness, we deny
the existence of the problem. However one cannot expect anything else from
party-determined historians.
12. ON FUTURE'S AIMS IN CTL-INFECTED ENVIRONMENTS
Let me emphasize once more: I do not
claim that Closed Timelike World Lines would exist in
Earth's neighbourhood. However: what if?
A technically advanced far Future
could use these CTL's for visiting Past, and in
principle could change it. Then of course the future of the past would change
too, so the startpoint of the process too. This seems
to lead to paradoxes which is advisable to be avoided.
However this do not necessarily
holds for stabilizing history. And
according to our present historical knowledge
Assume that Charles the Pretender is
not crowned in the Rheims Cathedral. Then the Armagnac Cause (and especially Charles) gets less followers; maybe Charles remains docile and gets a nice
County. Henry VI (minor) is the French King, and Great Lords, as e.g. the Duke
of Bedford govern
Therefore the Industrial Revolution
is delayed. Now, this is not the Past of the hypothesized time-travelling highly
technical Future. So if such a Future exists, it is obviously interested in a
past intervention of roughly Joan-type at c. 1429. Of course then the Joan
Chronology of Chapter 8 would not seem causally ordered, and indeed it does not.
I did not want to prove anything at
all; only to demonstrate some problems. They surely exist. But of course Amadée Thalamas and Maurice Pujo would have made scenes at the Sorbonne even if the
chronology had been trivially causal; they were strongly influenced by
politics.
EPILOGUE
As Einstein told:
Common Sense is the sum of our experience up to age 18. Now, General
Relativity is taught at Universities; in
General Relativity does not claim
the existence of CTL's in our neighbourhood. What I
tell is simply that in general sense they seem to be permitted by GR, and their
nonexistence has not been proven up to now. So in
General Relativity context it is quite physical to discuss if any trace of them
is or is not detected. I did this. If somebody claims that my discussion is
contrary to Common Sense, I repeat that presently General Relativity in general
is contrary to common sense.
What was not against common sense
was on one hand Amadée Thalamas'
opinion that Maurice Pujo was under the influence of
the Church and on the other Maurice Pujo's note that Amadée Thalamas was a free-mason.
However none of them gave a key for the solution of the ordering problem of the
Joan Chronology based on their true observations.
REFERENCES
[1] H. Beam Piper: Uller Uprising. Ace
Books,
[2] P. Hajdú: Chrestomathia
Samoiedica. Tankönyvkiadó,
[3] Aristotle of Stageira: Posterior Analytics.
(At Bekker N°'s
94a24-b27.)
[4] Aristotle of Stageira: On Divination
in Sleep. (At Bekker N°'s 462b13 - 464b19.)
[5] K. Martinás: Aristotelian
Thermodynamics. In: K. Martinás, L. Ropolyi &. P. Szegedi:
Thermodynamics: History and Philosophy. World Scientific,
[6] L. Diósi & B. Lukács: On the Minimum Uncertainty of Space-Time Geodesics.
Phys. Lett. A142,
331 (1989)
[7] Ágnes Holba
& B. Lukács: Is the Anomalous Brownian Motion Seen in Emulsions? Acta
Phys. Hung. 70, 121 (1991)
[8] Desanka Trbuhović-Djurić:
U senci Alberta Ajnstajna. Bagdala, Krushevac, 1969
[9] A.
Einstein & M. Grossmann: Entwurf einer verallgemeinerten Relativitätstheorie und einer Theorie der Gravitation. Z. Math.
Phys. 62, 225 (1913)
[10] B. Lukács:
Acausality and Retrocausality
in Four- and Higher-Dimensional General Relativity. In: R. Buccheri
& al. (eds.): The Nature of Time: Geometry, Physics and Perception. Kluwer,
[11] B. Lukács:
Benedict XVI, the Malachy Prediction and Closed Timelike Worldlines. http://www.rmki.kfki.hu/~lukacs/WHYNOT3.htm
[12] B. Lukács:
Csillagok rotációja és a gravitációs kollapszus. Ph.D. Theses,
[13] B. Lukács:
Rotating Perfect Fluids in the Triad Formalism of the Three-dimensional Relativity.
Relativity Today, Proc. 5th Hungarian Relativity Workshop, eds. C.
A. Hoenselaers & Z. Perjés,
Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest,
1997, p. 97
[14]
[15] D. C. Robinson:
Uniqueness of the Kerr Black Hole. Phys. Rev. Lett. 34, 905 (1975)
[16] F. J. Tipler: Rotating cylinders and the possibility of global
causality violation. Phys. Rev. D9,
2203 (1974)
[17] C. Lanczos:
Über eine stationäre Kosmologie im Sinne der
Einsteinischen Gravitationstheories.
Z. Phys. 21, 73 (1924)
[18] W. J. van Stockum: The Gravitational Field of a Distribution of
Particles Rotating around an Axis of Symmetry. Proc. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh 57A, 135 (1937)
[19] F. J. Tipler: Causality Violation in Asymptotically Flat
Space-Times. Phys. Rev. Lett. 37, 879 (1976)
[20] S. W. Hawking & G.
F. R. Ellis: The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time.
[21] F. Lobo & P.
Crawford: Time, Closed Timelike Curves and Causality.
In: R. Buccheri & al. (eds.): The Nature of Time:
Geometry, Physics and Perception. Kluwer,
[22] D. N. Vollick: How to Produce Exotic Matter Using Classical
Fields? Phys. Rev. D56, 4720 (1997)
[23] M. Visser
& C. Barcelo: Energy Conditions and Their
Cosmological Implications. Talk at Cosmo99,
[24] Ł. Bratek: Curious Spacetime
Singularities. Acta Phys. Pol.
B38, 3957 (2007)
[25] Régine Pernoud: Jeanne d'Arc par elle-męme at par ses
témoins. Éditions du Seuil, 1962 (I used a Hungarian
edition: Régine Pernoud:
Jeanne d'Arc. Ecclesia,
[26] J.-É.-J. Quicherat
(ed.): Procčs de condamnation
et de réhabilitation de Jeanne d'Arc,
dite La Pucelle, 5 Vols., J. Renouard, Paris,
1841-49; reprint:
[27] Vita Sackville-West: Saint Joan of Arc.
Grove Press,
[28] Margaret A. Murray: The God of Witches.
[29] A. Lang: The Valet's Tragedy and Other
Studies. Longmans,
[30] J. O. Delepierre:
Historical Difficulties and Contested Events.
[31] G. Save: Jehanne
des Armoises, Pucelle d'Orléans. Crespin Leblond,
[32] Ch. de Robillard
de Beaurepaire (ed.): Chronique
normande. Le Brument,
[33] J. Fiske: The
Unseen World and Other Essays. Houghton Mifflin,
[34] Chronique du doyen de Saint-Thibaud de Metz
in: Dom A. Calmet:
Histoire ecclesiastique et civile de la
[35] A. France: La vie de Jeanne d'Arc, Callmann-Levy,
[36] J. Nider: Formicarium.
[37] A. Lecoy de la Marche: Une fausse
Jeanne d'Arc. Revue des questions historiques,
Oct. 1871, p. 565
[38] A. Vallet de Viriville: Notices et extraits de chartes et de manuscrits appartenant au
[39] Abbé E. Bossard: Gilles de Rais, maréchal de France, dit Barbe-Bleue, 1404-1440. Champion, Paris, 1886
[40] Colette Beaune
(ed.): Journal d'un bourgeois de Paris de 1405 ŕ
1449. Librairie Générale Française, 1990
[41] A. Duleau: Vidimus d'une charte
de Charles VII, concedant a Pierre du Lys la possession de l'
Isle-aux-Boeufs. Bull. Soc. Arch. & Hist. de l’Orléanais 35, 222 (1860)
[42] G. Lefčvre-Pontalis:
La fausse Jeanne d'Arc. Paris-Orléans, 1905
[43] G. H. Tavard:
The Spiritual Way of St. Jeanne d’Arc. The Liturgical
Press,
[44] G. de Braux
& E. de Bouteiller: Nouvelles
recherches sur la famille de Jeanne d'Arc. Claudin, Paris, 1879
[45] A. Lecoy de la Marche: Le Roi Rene. Firmin-Didot,
[46] L. Jánossy:
Theory of Relativity Based on Physical Reality. Akadémiai
Kiadó,
[47] L. Jánossy, W. Yourgrau & A. J. Van der Merwe: On the Dimensionality of Physical Space. Acta Phys. Hung. 44,
167 (1978)
[48] P. Caze: La vérité sur Jeanne d'Arc. Rosa, Paris, 1819
[49] P. de Sermoise:
Joan of Arc and Her Secret Missions. R. Hale,
[50] A. de Vienne-Plancy:
Jeanne d'Arc n'a point ete brulee a
[51] L. Denis: The Mystery of Joan of Arc. Dutton
& Co.,
[52] Voltaire: Le Pucelle
d'Orléans.
[53] N. McWilliam:
Conflicting Manifestations. French Historical Studies 27, 381 (2004)
[54] A. Thalamas:
Jeanne d'Arc: L'Histoire et la Légend. Paclot
& Cie, Paris, 1904
[55] Nadia Margolis: The "Joan"
Phenomenon and the French Right. In: Bonnie Weeler
& Ch. T. Wood (eds.): Fresh Verdicts on Joan of Arc.
[56] Heather K. Robinson: Through a Political
Lens: Joan of Arc from Myth to Modern Fragmentation. Honors
Thesis,
[57] As it is referred by I. Maléter: Huszadik Század July-Aug. 1909, p. 83