New model 'permits time travel'

BBC ^ | 6/17/05 | Julianna Kettlewell

[reagan_fanatic]

If I could go back in time, I would sneak over to a young Catherine Bell's house and whipser subliminal messages in her ear while she's sleeping abour what a catch that Reagan_Fanatic is. *sigh*

[RegulatorCountry]

"How do we know that killing them as infants would not lead to even worse horrors arising in their place?"

Isn't there an episode of the newer version of "The Outer Limits" that plays around with just this notion? The infant Hitler's nanny is afflicted with visions of the evils that this infant will inflict upon the world, and throws him into a canal? I do remember the show, maybe it was a different series, but somebody's done it.

[RegulatorCountry]

"If I could go back in time, I would sneak over to a young Catherine Bell's house and whipser subliminal messages in her ear while she's sleeping abour what a catch that Reagan_Fanatic is. *sigh*"

LOL. That you're not with her now proves something, not sure what, but something.

[Clock King]

I just wish they'd get around to Stalin, Mao and Hitler!

Ah, but you missed the point! Some time travelers already have taken care of evil tyrants who would have been worse that those three, but the Universe will not be denied, and Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and Hitler rose to take the place of those who were removed from history. Didn't you see the Outer Limits episode where a time traveler went back to kill Hitler as an infant, but it turned out someone switched babies in the end?

[brytlea]

Maybe you could go back and invest in Walmart stock, but put it in a trust that you cannot get to until AFTER you left the present....
Or something like that.
susie

[dfwgator]

So much for killing Hitler and Karl Marx.

And whose to say that something even worse may not have resulted?

[RegulatorCountry]

"Didn't you see the Outer Limits episode where a time traveler went back to kill Hitler as an infant, but it turned out someone switched babies in the end?"

Oh, I forgot about the surprise ending. More subliminal predestination to drive ideologocial pseudoscientists batty.

[SoothingDave]

The article goes on to state not just your presence but change anything. So if my hypothetical argument did not have anything to do with my existence, lets say that instead of careening in the house, the person became famous, built a museum, started a ghost hunting service, and created a legend. Either way, a change has been made based on the premise that "I was visible". Ultimately, if you are visible, then your mere presence could trigger a chain of unknown events, whether for the best or the worst.

I guess the point is that anything your future self would do do "change" the past would already be reflected in the past as we know it. It's very deterministic.

If you had the ability to travel into the past and make yourself rich?(by buying stocks, betting on horse races, etc.), then you would be rich today. Because the past already happened. That you are not rich today is evidence that you did not do such a thing and that you never will.

SD

[RegulatorCountry]

"ideologocial"

Good god, I'm going to have to resort to spell check... that would be "ideological."

[RegulatorCountry]

"That you are not rich today is evidence that you did not do such a thing and that you never will."

But that just so UNFAIR.

[Navydog]

I tend to look at time as being like a black hole. When you are born, you start your journey towards the singularity which is death. You cannot escape from the pull of the singularity to return anywhere in the past either in your own lifetime much less before your lifetime. Our own individual existence creates our own personal warp of space time of which there is no possible way to change outside of the control of the will of the creator.

[blabs]

The entire concept is flawed, unless you are not visible and cannot interact with the environment. Your mere presence could set of an unknown sequence of events, period. Any small change could result in a large change, perhaps not to you directly, but maybe inderictely, which in effect could direct your decisions.

The only way this concept holds any water is if you are not visible, and the environment that you are in cannot be altered at all, not one iota. That means you can't even breathe the air.

[tet68]

Time travel became impossible on May23,2008 after
the democrat House and Senate supported a bill signed
into law by President H.Clinton that declared time travel
to be discriminatory to women, minorities, and the disabled.
Interestingly enough, Islamics were exempt from the provisions of the bill due to their being totally IN the past.

[Taxcider]

Well, that seems to throw a wrench in what happen
with the Dr. and Rose in Father's Day.

[RegulatorCountry]

"The only way this concept holds any water is if you are not visible"

Invisibility is technically possible with nanoscale "LED" like devices, an entire suit of them, reflecting the light from directly behind at every angle. There is some amount of research going on in this direction. So, invisibility alone would be insufficient to prevent some sort of minor change. I think I agree with SoothingDave, that the mere fact that you are, you exist, says that anything that happened in the past, happened. Which opens the door to a fixed future, something that infuriates some, for whatever reason.

[sonofatpatcher2]

Hummmmmmmmmmmmm!

The how did Bones save Edith and allow the nazis to win WW2 before Kirk allowed her to get run over by that beer truck?

Gad! Time travel sure is confusing, ain't it?

She's dead, Jim!!!!!!

[SoothingDave]

The entire concept is flawed, unless you are not visible and cannot interact with the environment. Your mere presence could set of an unknown sequence of events, period. Any small change could result in a large change, perhaps not to you directly, but maybe inderictely, which in effect could direct your decisions.

Of course the concept is flawed. Time travel is inherently paradoxical. "Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure" showed that. We need not even bother going back into time to make ourselves rich, we just have to resolve to do it in the future and our present instantly changes. Hence, when Bill and Ted needed Ted's dad's keys, they just appeared. One commented "We have to make sure we remember to go back and steal them" and the other responds "They're here, so we must have."

It's all a pile of illogic and paradox.

SD

[RegulatorCountry]

"Time travel is inherently paradoxical."

Well, the subject of this thread could very well indicate that, while time travel may appear paradoxical, there is some possibility that quantum mechanics will allow it. But, should this actually be possible, that there is no possibility of altering your present, or "the" present, by doing so.

[SoothingDave]

Well, the subject of this thread could very well indicate that, while time travel may appear paradoxical, there is some possibility that quantum mechanics will allow it. But, should this actually be possible, that there is no possibility of altering your present, or "the" present, by doing so.

So it may be technically possible, extremely expensive and utterly useless. Sounds like a gov't program.

SD

[devane617]

I don't know why everyone seems to dwell on time travel when several parallel universes could exist within the speed of light. Lets say we co-exist with a universe that is speeding at 10,000 time our universe, or 10,000 slower. We could all occupy the same space and never bump into each other, yet still remain well within the bounds of the speed of light.