Suppose it is possible for a device that allows time travel into the past. It is in its preliminary stages so understandably scientists are wary of using human subjects. Instead, they use an object - a ball, for example. Now, in these initial testings the traveling can only go as far back as a few minutes. What should conceivably happen is this - the ball would appear in its future position a few minutes before the experiment is initiated. How can the scientists involved prove that the ball in the past is indeed the ball from the future? For example: The ball is 'sent out' at 10 AM and appears in the room at 9:54 AM, going back six minutes. A very primitive method of confirmation (as they do in magic tricks) would be to ask one of the audience for an object to attach onto the ball at 9:58 AM. A ribbon from a woman's head, for instance.
Now comes the complication. The ribbon should appear before it has been decided as a piece for evidence. There are two reasons why this is impossible.
1. The ribbon would be present in the room the same time the ribbon is on the woman's head. This would require the object to be present twice in the same moment, going against the Lavoisier's law of conservation of mass.
2. Human choice is as capricious as chance. As far as we know the universe cannot predict our behavior, not to say the vagaries of the choice of a single ribbon (suppose she had many?) So to have the ribbon confirmed as an object from the future requires that the choice in the future is already set in stone, or else we could be facing a pingpong situation in which time is constantly on a standstill fluctuation due to the indecisiveness of the future individual. Either that, or it'd all just split into separate universes and take care of itself that way. That is a fanciful abberation, however. In all rationality, for the ribbon to be proven necessitates the chance of human choice. There is also the question of future actions influenced by past occurrences. What would happen if the ball were later decided not to be sent in tot e past after seeing the ball in the past already? Would we (a). Forget it because it never happened.(2). Be forced by some supernatural power to send the ball back (thus erasing human will or becoming hostage to our earlier choices?)
After contemplating these impossibilities mankind often comes to the conclusion of fairness - the human idea of fairness, that is. In a way, traveling into the past presents an unfair advantage to the party concerned in contrast to the other elements of the universe, so a punishment must be exacted. A scenario like the hopelessly bad future in The Butterfly Effect, perhaps. (which I absolutely hated because I abhor sad endings) Punishment as a balancing element, however, is a fairly human concept that can in no way be judged for absolute fairness according to the standards of nature that we have observed so far. (For example, we punish people for crimes they commit, and that seems to create a measure of equality in situation - having them 'pay' for their crimes. This system, however, in no way assures that people really 'get what they deserve'. Prison is not an equal punishment for people of all temperaments, some stand it better than others.)
ps: This is a purely theoretical work that just came to my mind while I was staring into space in Chemistry class. I have nearly no understanding of time theories in the world of physics or the land of science fiction, so please excuse me if this comes out sounding amateurish. I would very much enjoy it if someone could correct me.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
The Law of Conservation of Mass is not that all the matter in the universe is conserved; that's only with chemical and physical changes. When you convert the ball to energy, as one would have to to move it back in time, the ribbon would be converted to energy, E = mc2, allowing the ribbon to be converted back to mass when the movement across time finished.
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
Nearly everything that could not be done at the time was held to be impossible by some scientists.
Flight.
Breaking the sound barrier.
Atomic Bombs.
Sub-Atomic particles
etc.
Your arguments are not illogical, they just presuppose the 'Laws' of the universe based upon limited observations. As we learn more the laws of the universe have added complexity.
Heare is an article about the state of the art presently.
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/03/30/time.travel/
The obsevable time shifting does imply that it MIGHT not be impossible for larger more complex objects and calibratable times We could be a single breakthrough, or several insurmountable obstacles away.
Here are just a very few alternate possibilities.
"1. The ribbon would be present in the room the same time the ribbon is on the woman's head. This would require the object to be present twice in the same moment, going against the Lavoisier's law of conservation of mass."
Why would the transported ribon be in the room? As time passes all objects have several objects of movement operating on them; Rotation of the earth, earths orbit, solar systems orbit within the galaxy, galaxies movement. It might be difficult beyond our abilities to even find an object if were only transported a few moments in time.
A 'law' conserving mass fits our ability to observe, but it does not explain why there is any mass to begin with. Perhaps ALL mass is the same few particles at different time points. Who knows?
Science fiction takes all of this, and makes paradoxes of it. I do not think paradoxes exist except within imperfect understanding, but there is plenty of that.
"2....So to have the ribbon confirmed as an object from the future requires that the choice in the future is already set in stone, or else we could be facing a pingpong situation in which time is constantly on a standstill fluctuation due to the indecisiveness of the future individual. Either that, or it'd all just split into separate universes and take care of itself that way. That is a fanciful abberation, however."
All theorizing without experimentation is 'fanciful.' Chaos theory seems to negate a preordained, universe controlled by fate. That is my preference as well, but theory and my preference have little or no influence on the way things really are.
Science in this area is arcane math, science fiction is just imaginary concerning time travel. Scifi has a need to make it possible for story purposes, so that discredits their theorizing.
Science in this area is arcane math, science fiction is just imaginary concerning time travel.
The interesting thing about science fiction though--it's a really good predictor of the sciences we will develop in the future.
To name a few:
H.G. Wells
* Air conditioning
* Commercial television
* Cold Warfare
* Videotape recording
* Televised broadcasts sent simultaneously to all parts of the world
* Liquid all-purpose foods.
* Automatic doors.
* Portable television sets.
* Light globes that change night into day.
* Printed books have been replaced by videocassettes which tell stories.
* Propeller airplanes.
* Mechanized agriculture.
* Air raids by enemy craft on England.
* Gas warfare.
* Aerial bombings.
* Sea to Air Missiles
Murray Leinster - The Internet and Internet censorship
Theodore Sturgeon - Nanotechnology
Karel Capek - Household Robots
Robert A. Heinlein - Maglev trains and Cell phones
Also, a lot of science fiction, particularly the ones from the 50s or earlier are actually scientifically accurate. The authors did their homework. It's only until recent decades that authors moved away from scientifically accurate into dramatic in order to get sci-fi into the mainstream.
-- quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Sure, toss water beds and waldos for handling radioactive materials onto Heinleins list.
The authors try to be ahead of the curve rather than completely arround the bend in most of these cases. Also I note that most of these were just waiting for engineering refinements and time travel is going to take a breakthrough in theory.
I really enjoyed your blog lol. The two comments above mine pretty much take care of explaining different reasoning to explain how time travel may be possible so I don't need to do it again. However I'd like to reimply the idea that numerous things were said to be impossible before science discovered what they were and how they functioned. Are grasp of physics(theoretical and actual) is hardly set in stone and is always adjusting and adapting.
An interesting point you brought up was the idea of fairness. Sci fi movies/books do this all the time, ie you go back in time to change something and suceed while the universe "fills" that empty action with a new one. Best expample I can think of is this, **Spoiler for Smallville fans who haven't seen past season 5** Clark Kent's gf, lana, dies and a car accident and he begs his real father for a way to change it, go back in time. his real father warns him of this "balancing act" that the universe uses but Clark goes back anyways. He saves lana and his adoptive father has a fatal heart attack, in a way "filling" the void left by lana's death.
All interesting theories and here is one more to throw on top. Suppose every time a person/object is sent back in time they actually create a new time line seperate from their original. In this case the scientist sending the ball back would simply see it vanish and never reappear b/c it in fact returned to a previous time AND created a seperate timeline that the old scientist are not a part of. This idea is shown, just going for popularity as it is done a lot, in Back to the Future part 2 when Biff uses the time machine to make himself wealthy and change the timeline. Furthermore, another branch of this theory is that their is a main timeline that can not be swayed by a non-seintent being. Meaning that only a human traveling back in time could possibly make his altered timeline the main one. This gets a little confusing, as most time travel theories do, but it is really interesting stuff.
For more on time travel I'd suggest the book The Time Machine, or the movie by the same name. The book was published in 1895, written by HG Wells, and is really reason anyone talks about time travel in great detail, it is probably one of the greatest science fiction books of all time. The movie, I believe at least, was produced by HG Wells grandson and does a good job of interperting the book. So if you can't stand books watch that movie. All in all though, book is better by far.
Nothing is True, Everything is Permitted
If I remember right, Mr. Kent dies to said fatal heart attack in season 3 or 4, though at the time it's just "mysterious" circumstances.
It's an interesting note on the way the universe/multiverse deals with time travel.
-- quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Johnathan Kent dies in season 5, in the 100th episode of smallville. I know way to much about this show b/c i am, in all honesty, a big nerd. He suffered a heart attack that was nearly fatal in season 4 after being possessed by Clark's adoptive father, jor-el. He continued to have heart problems until he died of a massive heart attack outside the kent family farm...exactly how he died in the first superman movie
Nothing is True, Everything is Permitted
Ah, ok. I haven't kept up since about season 4 since I only recently got cable TV for the first time in nearly 3 years.
Now, is that episode (where he dies) the same one that Clark went back in time? And here's a fun question to ponder--would Jonathan have died if Clark hadn't gone back and saved Lana?
-- quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
As all humans tend to do at one point or another lol. Yes he goes back in time to save lana and his adoptive father dies to "fill" the void. Also in the original superman movies johnathan kent dies outside the family barn and that inspires clark kent to leave smallville and head into metropolis, hence becoming superman. So it was written in the shows contract, from the owners of superman, that johnathan kent must die the same way.
Nothing is True, Everything is Permitted
I am impressed with the blog and comments about time travel. I don't really understand all that goes into the scientific principles of time travel, but this blog and the comments following break it down to make it all easier to swallow. Thanks!
"If imperfections are what make us beautiful, then I must be a total babe!"
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/missionsminded-maiden
2. Human choice is as capricious as chance. As far as we know the universe cannot predict our behavior, not to say the vagaries of the choice of a single ribbon (suppose she had many?) So to have the ribbon confirmed as an object from the future requires that the choice in the future is already set in stone, or else we could be facing a pingpong situation in which time is constantly on a standstill fluctuation due to the indecisiveness of the future individual. Either that, or it'd all just split into separate universes and take care of itself that way. That is a fanciful abberation, however. In all rationality, for the ribbon to be proven necessitates the chance of human choice. There is also the question of future actions influenced by past occurrences. What would happen if the ball were later decided not to be sent in tot e past after seeing the ball in the past already? Would we (a). Forget it because it never happened.(2). Be forced by some supernatural power to send the ball back (thus erasing human will or becoming hostage to our earlier choices?)
It's exactly that train of thought that I think time machines haven't really been developed. Human beings don't like the idea of not being in control. Time travel could very well prove to us that we aren't in control as much as we think, or at all.
Here's another paradoxical example for you to think about:
A man creates a time machine, for whatever reason, and goes back in time 50 years or so. He unwittingly keeps his grandparents from meeting, thus destroying himself as he knows it because he was never born to begin with.
If he was never born, that means he never could have created the time machine and gone back in time and separated his grandparents. If he never did it, then he was born and would have created the time machine. The loop then continues indefinitely.
So, what happens to the man? It's possible that he no longer becomes part of time. He still exists in space-time, but unaging because he's no longer part of the time half of that (Einstein's theory of relativity explains that space and time are connected, the faster you move, the slower time goes; theoretically, if there were two twins, one went into space at the speed of light for 20 years and the other stayed on earth, then when the space one returned, he would look and technically be 20 years younger than the earth twin).
T_Time mentioned a couple good time travel stories to look into. I've got another one for you. A Sound of Thunder by Ray Bradbury. This one goes into the idea of the butterfly effect and shows possible consequences to the future for stepping on a butterfly in the past.
-- quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Since he would be existing in the present for the grandparents, he wouldn't be affected. If he returned to his time, he would find one in which he wouldn't exist.
when you alter the past, you change the present and future, but if you are IN the past when you change it, you are not affected.
That it is a MENTAL paradox does not mean that it is anything that would tear a hole in the universe like in the Back to the Future movies.
o.O I never mentioned anything about Back to the Future.
when you alter the past, you change the present and future, but if you are IN the past when you change it, you are not affected.
Prove it.
As it stands right now, what happens when someone goes back in time is purely theoretical. It's entirely possible that we're all right (thanks to the existence of parallel universes).
Even my theory isn't that far fetched considering the topic. It's theoretically possible to live solely in space and not time, so it is therefore theoretically possible to live solely in time and not space. The effects of either on a human being are somewhat unimaginable (probably because we'd rather not imagine what would happen if one lived solely in time).
The space-time continuum, relativity, and quantum physics are quite odd things, if you think about. At the speed of light, pretty much every physics-based scientific theory breaks down. Black holes are so dense and have such high gravity that not even light can escape. Light itself is both waves and particles. Toss in the theories of dark matter, dark energy, and cosmic background radiation and you have a whole other can of worms to play with.
-- quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Prove something theoretical?
Disprove it. *shrug*
There, that almost accomplished something.
The idea that a person going back in time and changing something that would cause them to cease to be is largely a mind trick.
If it were possible, it'd be very easy to do. However, since the action happened in the present, they wouldn't be affected. They really wouldn't 'cease to be' . .. You wouldn't have Marty McFly playing the guitar while his hand disappears, watching his brother and sister disappear from a photograph. (In fact, if it were to happen, it'd be instant, and there wouldn't be any playing of Chuck Berry songs.)
If you go back in time and change the past, you make a new present. However, because you are in the past, it would become a new future. As you were already there, you wouldn't cease to be. It is a concept that is hard to understand, especially when we apply a logic to things that we don't understand (which breeds incorrect thinking as much as leaving bread on top of the fridge for a month breeds mold)
Now, I don't quite understand what changing the past has to do with the particle affect of light, nor dark matter..... or cosmic radiation for that matter.... as none of those really have much to do with possible time travel, despite what Star Trek says.
If you go back in time and change the past, you make a new present. However, because you are in the past, it would become a new future. As you were already there, you wouldn't cease to be.
Except that if you were never alive to create the time machine to change the past, then you never went back in time to begin with. Best case scenario, then, would be that you return to your time as a complete stranger and no identification because technically you were never born. (This is, of course, assuming there's only one timeline and one universe.)
Of course, we first have to figure out if time is actually linear.
Now, I don't quite understand what changing the past has to do with the particle affect of light, nor dark matter..... or cosmic radiation for that matter.... as none of those really have much to do with possible time travel, despite what Star Trek says.
Again, I haven't mentioned any movies or TV shows, nor am I getting my information from them. The idea of time travel falls under the same or similar umbrella term of physics, and perhaps even quantum physics. If nothing else, we're looking at theoretical ideas that are damn near impossible to really wrap your head around and make sense of.
-- quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Except that if you were never alive to create the time machine to change the past, then you never went back in time to begin with. Best case scenario, then, would be that you return to your time as a complete stranger and no identification because technically you were never born. (This is, of course, assuming there's only one timeline and one universe.)
That's just it... you WERE there to do it. That's why you went back. When you changed YOUR past, IN your past, what changed became the future. You wouldn't cease to be because the course of action taking place from that point on is altered.
However, once you alter the timeline, to you it is a new timeline. It is a mental block that makes people think that time would cease, or there'd be a cosmic snafu if you altered the past. It simply wouldn't be. It is an idea kicked around by people who don't understand as much as they THINK they understand... but want to sound deep anyway.
Alternate Universes, Dark Matter, etc. etc. etc. . . none of that matters when you're talking about alterations in the past by someone from the future.
As much as you believe that you're right because you thought it... you really aren't. That you're digging in your heels even now only shows that you feel you are mentally superior to those who disagree with you.
Really not the case.
That's just it... you WERE there to do it. That's why you went back. When you changed YOUR past, IN your past, what changed became the future. You wouldn't cease to be because the course of action taking place from that point on is altered.
Then where did you come from to be able to change your past, since in that time line you no longer exist? And you can't argue with the statement that in the new time line you no longer exist, because in that time line you were never born, therefore the life as you knew it before you left is now gone. You become a stranger in your own time.
However, once you alter the timeline, to you it is a new timeline. It is a mental block that makes people think that time would cease, or there'd be a cosmic snafu if you altered the past. It simply wouldn't be. It is an idea kicked around by people who don't understand as much as they THINK they understand... but want to sound deep anyway.
I never said time would stop, I said that it's possible that the person could exist solely in time and no longer part of space, because it is theoretically possible to exist outside one or the other (that's the entire basis of the "twin theory," where one goes into space at light speed and the other stays on Earth).
As much as you believe that you're right because you thought it... you really aren't. That you're digging in your heels even now only shows that you feel you are mentally superior to those who disagree with you.
You said yourself that the theories can neither be proven nor disproven (which was also the point I was making when I first told you to prove it), so how can you be any more right than me?
-- quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Then where did you come from to be able to change your past, since in that time line you no longer exist?
You're not from that new timeline's future, the future is not solid, even if you've already experienced it. You're in it in the present. If you move forward, you move forward from that chosen line.
I said that it's possible that the person could exist solely in time and no longer part of space, because it is theoretically possible to exist outside one or the other
People are made of matter. If you remove the matter, you remove the person. Remember that we can't move at the speed of light. We also used to believe that the sound barrier could never be broken. At one point it was thought that if you went over 50 or 60 miles per hour, the skin would rip off of your face. Imagine what we'll find impossible in the future.
People are made of matter. If you remove the matter, you remove the person. Remember that we can't move at the speed of light. We also used to believe that the sound barrier could never be broken. At one point it was thought that if you went over 50 or 60 miles per hour, the skin would rip off of your face. Imagine what we'll find impossible in the future.
What's your point here? From what I can see, it has nothing to do with what I said that you quoted.
The current idea is that if we move at the speed of light, to use Einsteins theory, our matter would become energy.
At one point, the standing theory was that we could never break the sound barrier as our bones would turn to jelly and our head and chest would cave in.
At one point, the standing theory was that if we went over 60 miles an hour, our skin would rip off our face.
Each was based on what they thought was sound science, but turned out later to be flawed and based on an inccorect understanding of the universe and how it works.
One day, just as we laugh at the idea of being physically unable to go faster than 60 mph, or being physically unable to break the sound barrier, people will look back and laugh at our idea that we couldn't go faster than light.
Einstein's current theory states that the mass of matter would increase to infinity as it approached the speed of light and would therefore need an increasing amount of energy to continue accelerating to the speed of light (e=mc^2; energy = mass*speed of light^2).
The thing about light, though, is that it's a substance (if you will), that can move as such speeds (so it has no mass), and can also move through a vacuum (independent of a carrier substance). It can, however, be bent and white light can be visibly separated into different colors based on their frequencies in the electromagnetic spectrum (red=low frequency to violet=high frequency), and objects can absorb and reflect the substance depending on the frequencies.
-- quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Yes, I know what light is and how it functions, but your post had nothing to do with what I said.
it was brought up that humans haven't bothered fully investigating time travel b/c they don't want to know those paticular answers. I would throughly back this point up. Even though people who believe in a literally meaning of the bible say that god is all powerful and knows everything that ever has and ever will happen they still like to maintain the idea that they have free choice. However if god knows everything then you don't have a choice, god already knows what you are going to do.
Imagine a line of dominos. If you push one domino over it will hit the next one and then the next, so on. Any person watching this action would say that the last domino fell over b/c the previous one hit it. Now imagine an infinite number of dominos with an infinite number of starting/ending points. B/c the vastness and complexities are so far beyond are understanding we simply say that each domino fell over b/c of free will and not b/c of any outside influence. We simply do not understand what is happening so we say that there is free will.
And even if we do not have free will, humans will always pretend that we do. Nobody wants no free will. Otherwise civilization would shut down entirely. "Why wake up in the morning, why form relationships, why make money, why eat food, everything is planned for me anyways, I have no control." That is the mentality that everyone would fall into. And for that reason, people do not want to answer the questions of time, they fear the answers.
Nothing is True, Everything is Permitted
I enjoyed this blog! Thanks for writing this. The topic is somewhat new to me. But I've seen movie like Back to the Future before and it scares me. No one should travel back in time and no one should travel to the future. Whether or not it's possible, if someone greedy achieves this goal, things can get really messed up.
To be stuck in a time we don't belong in can be exciting. If I have to choose, I'd rather be in the future than the past. Some of the things other users said sort of reminded me of the concept of psychics. If you have the chance to know everything about your future, would you go through with it? (Considering the psychic is reliable and all...)
The moment is here and now. I'm not sure why anyone would want to skip to the future or jump back to the past. It is an interesting subject to think and talk about. But it isn't something anyone would do. Time traveling machine would definitely break universal laws. Thus proving science to be flawed even more, right? Then religions come into play...and we have this huge mess of problems. lol If the time machine was ever created, the creator (or someone else) would probably immediately destroy it.
----------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.mylot.com/?ref=truelife
But when in recorded history has God ever stepped in and destroyed something. Greek fire, guns, cannons, rockets, a bomb, h bomb, even the internet have all been factors that have destroyed countless numbers of god's children and never has there been a DIRECT interference. You could argue that God has quelled issues afterwards or influenced restraint or anything else, but he has never stepped up and destroyed something that would harm people.
If a time machine was created I would hope that the actual reprucussions would be looked at before the theological. However I believe that the most likely form of "time travel" we will see for a long, long time is when we invent ships that can travel near the speed of light. Now this is a long way off still but it is the thing I see directly in front of us. If your not familar with this type of theoritical flight here's a brief run down. If you could travel close or at the speed of light then time would relatively pass much slower for you opposed to all earth dwelling people. Theoritically if you left earth for 5 years traveling near the speed of light when you returned 50 years would have passed on earth, most likely leaving the generation you left dead or dying.(That math is simply an example, not actually correct, but the effect is the same) Therefore you could in a way, time travel to the future while barely aging yourself. Not time travel how it is originally pictured but probably the most likely to ever happen
Nothing is True, Everything is Permitted
but he has never stepped up and destroyed something that would harm people.
I could be wrong, but I think they're referring to the creator of the machine.
-- quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
I didn't read it that way b/c religion was mentioned in the previous sentence. But that also brings a question of why would the creator of the machine up and destroy it? Hate to break it but the people who make these type of machines are not usually interested in reprucussions. Maybe the thinkers would like the machine destroyed but certainly not the people who built it/funded it.
Nothing is True, Everything is Permitted
Sorry if I wasn't clear. I wasn't really talking about God when I stated "creator", I meant the person who ever created the machine manually. I have no doubt in my mind that when things really come down to the moment when people realize what harm a time machine can do, someone will want to destroy it (whether it's the people who funded, built it, thought of it, etc.). Of course, I realize there are greedy people out there who would like a time machine for themselves. But more people will want to stop that from happening for sure.
And about the theoretical flight, I find that concept to be cool. However, the thought of skipping a whole generation to the future saddens me. It would mean leaving people at this time behind. I like living in the present. Traveling to the past or to the future...I cannot help but laugh. If it is possible, I wonder who will be the first person to sacrifice him or her self to travel to a time they do not belong in.
----------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.mylot.com/?ref=truelife
I guess the evidence I've always seen that time travel to the past is impossible is that no one killed Hitler before he rose to power. (Or, at least, before the holocaust)
No one took out Stalin before he had 100 million of his own people killed.
No one took out the 9/11 hijackers prior to the hijacking of the plans.
So I don't use science, but history, to suggest that we cannot travel into the past.
This is another idea. What if all those things had to happen in order for the "future world" to turn out right/good. In another series of books called the Pendragon Series, the main character actually has to LET the hindenberg crash, 1939 blimp crash in new york, in order to save more lives than it would have if he had warned the pilots. How do you know that Hitler/Stalin/September 11th were the wrong things aka needed to be fixed?
Nothing is True, Everything is Permitted
Because there is no 'good' reason for trying to exterminate the Jews.
Only evil ones.
I didn't mean killing jews was the right thing to happen. But think about it, if there is no WW2 then it is likely that America continues the depression for much longer, there would be no cold war, so no space travel, no technology leaps so most likely no internet/cell phones/blogs on proU. Killing jews is wrong but if it didn't happen then the world would be vastly different than it is now...what if world war 2 had to happen so something worse didn't?
Nothing is True, Everything is Permitted
It wasn't the war that got us out of the depression. It was when the government stopped trying to make welfare programs that people started to lift out of the depression.
By 1941, we were largely OUT of the depression. The only help the war gave was to off-set the destructive nature of the welfare type programs started by the democrats in the 1930's.
However, cell phones aren't worth the attempted destruction of the Jews. It would be better to still have the old rotary style telephones than to have had the attempted destruction of the Jews.
World War II didn't start in 1941, we were just thrown into an active role at that time. The war had been going on for quite some time before then. It was our efforts to passively support the war by sending supplies to the Allied Forces that helped get us out of the Depression.
I think most people in the world today would agree to leave the time line as it is. Even though the Holocaust was horrible, if it didn't happen things would be drastically different. The world would have a larger population. People probably wouldn't have made such steps towards peace and removal of prejudice. The understanding and thus prevention of the human psyche from situational controls like Hitler's systematic Nazism of Germany would be lacking. The Jews would not be able to create Israel... but the greatest argument would be - we might not be born. And whatever unfortunate life you've been born into, we do not understand enough about 'the human soul' to assure that we'd still be in existence if any such great change in time were to occur. Indeed. The prevention of the Holocaust would be, I believe, impossible. Since the changed future could not be aware of such a catastrophe, or believe it, to make an effort to go into the past and change anything. Besides. It would be horribly difficult to change the Holocaust since we cannot really pinpoint one thing that had caused it, even now. Kill Hitler, sure, and would not another rise? And is it moral to kill one because of his/her potential for a horrendous future crime? (See Minority report)
Yes the evil communist liberals were keeping us in the depression, no offense, grow up. We were already out of the depression by 1941 b/c we had been supporting and building are military since 1938. We had also transformed many factories into war producing companies for the Europeans AND for our own military before the attack on pearl harbor. FDR knew we were going to eventually going to get into the war, hence WORLD WAR 2...it was effecting everyone and there was no way of us getting out of it. WW2 brought us out the depression, fact.
Also, again, I'm not saying that a cell phone is better than 9 million jews and 60 million other people who died in WW2, however you do not know, nobody does, the reprucussions of what would have happened if there was no Hitler. How do you know that someone else would have come along who WON and conquered the world and eliminated the jews? You don't. I don't. Nobody does. All I am saying is that you think people in the future would have stopped everything evil if they had the power, and they didn't so obviously they can't travel through time. That is a stupid argument b/c people in the future may not want to effect time like that b/c they know it is right thing to happen.
Nothing is True, Everything is Permitted
Yes the evil communist liberals were keeping us in the depression, no offense, grow up. We were already out of the depression by 1941 b/c we had been supporting and building are military since 1938. We had also transformed many factories into war producing companies for the Europeans AND for our own military before the attack on pearl harbor. FDR knew we were going to eventually going to get into the war,
Odd you mention FDR and communists in the same paragraphs, considering Alger Hiss and a whole host of other soviets working in the FDR and Truman administration (and throughout all of the government) as finally proven in the Verona project.
See, when you raise taxes, you prohibit businesses from expanding, as there is an additional outgoing source of money that a business needs to pay.
This keeps them from expanding their business and hiring more workers.
These workers then need some sort of income.... so they go to one of these new welfare programs.
Which increases the need for more money, which results in more taxes. Then the cycle repeats itself.
Contrary to the popular belief that you hold, that it was the war that pulled us out of the depression, we were already arching up out of the Great Depression. The presidents before FDR basically did nothing for the common businessman, nor really did anything in terms of program creation based on taxpayer expense.
As a result, people were able to expand their businesses and hire more workers, who then had more money to spend on products and services, which further benefited businesses, which let them expand further.
Yes, there was a boost by the military buildup, there is no doubt... but such a boost was greatly off-set by the welfare type programs, at taxpayer expense, set up by the likes of FDR.
The truth was, if there had been no war, nor FDR, we would have just as quickly ended the depression... we were already doing it.
Since this is a blog about the possibilities of time travel and not the economics of the great depression I am going to limit my comments to time travel. You said time travel isn't possible b/c bad things have happened. I said time travelers from the future may have discovered key points in history that they can not alter b/c the ramifications would be to vast and horrible. You can not, with any certainy, say that if Hitler dies before he came to power the world would be better, because in all honesty nobody knows. As far as your prediction on time travel, maybe nobody figures it out ever, also maybe I am right. Also maybe they only go forward as I outlined with near light-speed travel, who knows they are just theories. I was offering a different reason why bad things in history could have still happened even if time travel is eventually invented.
If you would like to write a blog on economics of the great depression and WW2 then I'd be happy to comment on it, however this has nothing to do with the original blog. But to get you started here would be some of my comments. One, we/you/earth doesn't know what would have happened if there was no FDR, he was to big of a player to just erase from history and think things would turn out the same. Also why wouldn't FDR have some marxist thinkers in his cabinet, at that time it was a philosophy and damnit a good one at that. Marxism, in theory, isn't that bad of idea...unfortanatley nobody has gotten it to pan out with any positive results. Sorry but I was born after the Cold War and the whole "you're a communist, he's a communist" bit doesn't scare me like it does my parents.
Nothing is True, Everything is Permitted
Right, but even if it was 'outlawed' to kill hitler, someone still would have.
someone would have still said "well, I don't care what they say, I'm going to take him out!"
I think it would be easier to travel to the future than to the past, what with time appearing to slow down as you approach light speed.
That said, it is, at best, currently a theory, and all of it is moot until we get to that point.
As for marxism... no, marxism isn't a good idea, ever. under Stalin, over 100 million people were killed or starved to death under what soviet russia would report as "70 years in a row of bad weather" . . . The soviets weren't in government as advisors as to how to fight against the soviets, but were there to benefit the soviets. Hiss was a key figure in the soviets getting so much land after World War 2, despite being on hitler's side for most of it. (this land included a large sphere of influence in Germany, which screwed germany over for decades.)
The Verona project decoded a tiny fraction of soviet cables during that time, which named an ungodly number of people working in sensitive government positions that were on the soviet payroll. That is normally referred to as a 'spy' . . . Chambers even admitted that they were spies, working for the soviets and against the US government (as he was one who defected), but he was blacklisted by the Demcorats and Academia... only later to be proven right when Hiss sued him for slander. He was later AGAIN proven right when Hiss' name was mentioned in the Verona cables.
Marxism, and communism in general, is responsible for the deaths of countless millions of people, in a way that even Hitler couldn't have imagined.
"Uncle Joe" Stalin (as FDR referred to him) was not a kind figure with a good governmental system.
You understand your fellow men. It's nigh impossible to create a golden rule and expect everyone to obey. Whatever arguement theorists, moralist, and historians might have against altering certain events of the past due to the repercussions, there are those who will not listen. I doubt even I myself would listen after going through a particularly heartrending tour of the Holocaust memorial. With this in mind, even if a government had found a way to travel into the past, they would most likely keep mum. Such a powerful object would be too easy to abuse. We already have nuclear weapons, do we really want a time travel machine?
I believe I'd rather nobody ever would be able to invent such.
Besides, what makes life precious, what makes our every moment precious, is because we can't go back and redo everything. It's a wishful thought every human being has eventually, but it's horribly unwise. It's almost as frightening as the idea of wishing to live forever. Wonderful, yes, we would be able to do all the things we wanted to do - or would we? As in the Earthsea chronicles, being afraid of death can be almost parallel to denying life. As humans we already have a relatively long lifetime compared to most other animals (except possibly the tortoise).
Then you know nothing about the theory. Read Marx and discover the real theory, then ignore the crappy attempts at it. Then we can talk. Communism is what happened, ie stalin, castro. Marxism is the theory.
Nothing is True, Everything is Permitted
Ahh, so because I disagree, I must not be educated enough.... typical.
Everything is great 'in theory' . .. I am concerned with what works.
EVERY time communism is tried, in any form, it ends up in death and destruction, with only the oppressing few having propserity.
Lance, c'mon your obviously highly educated on a vast number of things, and you know that is not what I was saying. Theory is what we base many things off of, why is it not possible that theory is correct and the users were corrupt. I agree that communism has never been succesful. But to say that we only look at what works/is practical is a joke, democracy never worked before the US and was simply a theory before a bunch of old guys got together 250 years ago and said, "we are gonna do this"
Nothing is True, Everything is Permitted
You're incorrect on both counts, actually.
Democracy was around LONG before the United States:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_democracy
As for why communism fails, every time it is ever tried, it is because of the greed of man. Communism is based on altruism. People freely giving of themselves, working to benefit everyone except themselves (since they get the same amount whether they work or not).... When people stop working, militaries have to then FORCE them to work.
This happened in the USSR, where people were arrested and killed, or just starved to death, when they didn't do the bidding of the Government, which set out to fill its needs with the people.
The same happens in China. Same with Cuba. Every communist country falls under that same trap.
Why, then, does a democratic Republic with capitalist leanings succeed? Because in order to get by, one needs to work, and the more one works, the more one can get. Don't like your lot in life? Sacrifice and work and over time, you'll better your position. Save up and work hard, The American Dream. When YOU work hard to benefit yourself, you also benefit others, as they can purchase your product or service.
One of the tests of insanity is if one does the same thing, over and over, expecting different results. Why would someone STILL want to try communism? (Except, perhaps, for the select few who are set up in charge, who are the only ones to actually benefit from communism.)
I know communism has never worked...I've said it 2 or 3 times now. But your wrong about democracy as well. The theory of democracy had been around for a long time however their were no actual succesful democracies on a large scale. No country before the US got democracy to work for more than a generation. Communism hasn't worked out yet, mainly b/c of the greed of the leaders your right that's not hard to see. However that doesn't mean the theory is wrong or bad, it means it hasn't worked yet. Democracy failed FAR more than three times(just as communism failed in USSR, china, cuba) yet the founders stil thought it was the best idea to start with.
As you also said we live in a republican-democracy more than a true democracy but at the heart of our system is the theory.
Nothing is True, Everything is Permitted
I suppose you think that the Mesopotamian and Roman empires never really amounted to anything...
Of course, Athens is only the society that coined the term "Democracy" . ..
come on now. just one generation? really? that's what you think?
And it isn't that communism failed 'only three times' . . . but EVERY time, and always results in ungodly numbers of dead. There has never been a GOOD communism. All Communist countries are BASED on the removal of rights of the citizens for the good of the 'government' . . . the antithesis of democracy.
Communism will always fail. It will always be corrupt, and it will always be supported by people who ignore the threat of communism and by the select few in power who benefit from it.
Don't you remember the USSR? Don't you see China? Don't you see the abject poverty of Cuba? (They float here on old refrigerators that they hope last long enough in the water to get them to Florida, in hopes of touching our soil to be legal immigrants of the US.... as is our open call to Cubans..... as it is better to be free and poor here than oppressed and poor in cuba.)
"Communism hasn't worked out yet, mainly b/c of the greed of the leaders your right that's not hard to see. However that doesn't mean the theory is wrong or bad"
How incopatable with the facts does a theory have to be to be wrong?
In this particular case the theory disregards human greed. Since it is one of the most reliable human traits that problem seems unlikely to disappear.
The Romans and Mesopotamians were not anything close to democracies. Closer to Republics but that isn't the right word either. Those were not working democracies and didn't even use the basic principles of democracy in their states. Athens greece was the closest thing to a working democracy ever, and yes it lasted more than a generation, but that is b/c there were like 25 guys in the town who they allowed to participate and made slaves do all the work. Athens is as big as what, LA-no, NYC-no, Chicago-nope...it is like the town in new hampshiere where everyone gets together on primary night and votes together as a town, that is how small athens is. It was a city, not a country.
Nothing is True, Everything is Permitted
Heh. I'm glad I bothered to provide a link for your earlier to explain the history of democracy.
You've shown your wllingness to look at other points.
And I think it backs me up more than you. It says meso was only a small city just like Athens before the empire became a dictaorship. You've yet to show me a country run by a democracy similar to our own in all of history. It is b/c they don't exist man, it never worked before us and it was just a theory before that. Since that link was likely made by someone a few years older than me for w/e purpose I don't really need to believe it either. Wiki doesn't work for my history papers on romans why would I believe it now? Everything I've studied never says the Roman Empire is a democracy.
Question: If I was unable to look at other points do you really think I would have kept this debate going for days on multiple blogs. I like hearing other points of view, but I don't think yours is right.
Nothing is True, Everything is Permitted
I've yet to see you change your views. being able to say the same thing over and over hardly qualifies as 'keeping a debate going'
I don't usually just change my perspectives at random. You stated first that you knew the world would be better if hitler AND FDR never existed, I said you have no way of knowing that, which is still true. Then you said that communism was and always will be a bad idea, I agreed that communism hasn't worked but said again that you can't know it will never work, also still true. Then I said that democracy was simply a theory and failed attempts before the US and you provided a link to wikipedia that outlined that I was correct, there has never been a country that uses the American structure that has lasted more than a generation. Rome wasn't based on democracy but a republic and meso was just like athens, a small city not a country. I have no need to change my views b/c nothing has changed in the equation...
Nothing is True, Everything is Permitted