Forums → The Tavern → Going Back in Time
| 15 | 1926 |
A semi-stupid idea, but what if we invented a time travel device to travel back in time, then we send somee of the top people in each field of study back in time to the stone age or something with resources required to teach them the therories and inventions that we created so that when we go back into the future we would be more advanced?
If you are thinking that the early humans will just take our inventions and become lazy expecting us to just send them the stuff so they can use it, we will be only giving them one of the invention and maybe even just the blueprints if it is too big and have them uderstand it fully so that they could improve it and reproduce it.
Only real problem I could see is if we just burn all non renewable resources really quickly and screw up the world ahead of time, but then wouldn't they figure out alternatives to non renewable resources?
- 15 Replies
All I would do is go back and shoot Hitler between the eyes and come back.
If you change one thing in the past, everything in the future will be much different. This means that those scientists who went back in time to change the past would not have existed and therefore would not have gone back in time to change the past. Now there's a paradox, because the past has already been changed but there's nobody there to have changed it.
This is why time travel is a bad idea.
If you change one thing in the past, everything in the future will be much different. This means that those scientists who went back in time to change the past would not have existed and therefore would not have gone back in time to change the past. Now there's a paradox, because the past has already been changed but there's nobody there to have changed it.
This is why time travel is a bad idea.
Why wouldnt the scientists exist after you change what happened?
Why wouldnt the scientists exist after you change what happened?
The past would be entirely different, so people would have had children with different people and the gene pool would be severely altered. Therefore, no two people who existed in the original present could possibly exist in the alternate one.
The past would be entirely different, so people would have had children with different people and the gene pool would be severely altered. Therefore, no two people who existed in the original present could possibly exist in the alternate one.
so you're saying that if you change something in the past then it will be like a chain reaction that would lead to you not existing in that instance that you changed the past? So you would go from something to nothing even though you used to be in the past but you as a future baby wasn't born so the past you or the present you would no longer be there.
Is that what you were thinking?
That's what I'm saying. Some time travel movies take it into consideration while others don't, but it's probably the most important thing to remember when traveling back in time.
That's what I'm saying. Some time travel movies take it into consideration while others don't, but it's probably the most important thing to remember when traveling back in time.
But how would you really have a movie about traveling in time if the people who time travel basicly delete everything about them once they do it?
Let's face it.. the people traveling back would be the only one witnessing the advancements made. Then why going back to teach our ancestors how to do it? Why not simply travelling to the future? It would lead basically to the same result.
But you need not think too hard about it since time travel isn't possible. All those travelling things with it's paradoxes are of the realm of SciFi.
But how would you really have a movie about traveling in time if the people who time travel basicly delete everything about them once they do it?
This is why I don't watch time travel movies. They often don't take that point into consideration. Back to the Future skims over it very loosely, but most time travel movies completely overlook it.
All those travelling things with it's paradoxes are of the realm of SciFi.
The thread is all hypothetical, just as the world of sci-fi is.
Now there's a paradox, because the past has already been changed but there's nobody there to have changed it.
That's why some people believe that, rather than being trapped in a quantum paradox, the universe would diverge into two, separate realities, thus fixing the paradox. Of course, this is all assuming that time travel ever becomes possible.
I don't know who said this...but there is something said about time travel that goes along the lines of "We know that Time travel is something most likely unachievable, due to the fact that we have yet to encounter someone that is from the future"
Even if time travel was created, though, it is something that would be like "hey check out what we made! Time Travel!" and then right afterwards "BUT! Due to time travel law and paradox stuff....no one can use it, just to be on the safe side"
I can't see why they would make it if they wouldn't use it.
Does seem quite pointless.
I reckon if it was possible, it would be some form of money making scheme, which is ridic.
I would go back to 1941 & ruin the ending of the movie 'Citizen Cane' by telling everybody the meaning of him saying 'Rosebud'
You must be logged in to post a reply!