Discussion:
Time Anomolies
(too old to reply)
j***@gmail.com
2006-03-27 07:17:34 UTC
Permalink
In the episode "The Unquiet Dead" Rose actually touched on TWO
potential anomolies involved with time travel. The first one is the
obvious one: "If I have lived in the future, how can I die in the
past?"

This question was answered (or at least "rationalized") back in the Tom
Baker days.

The second, and much more subtle, question was asked when Rose first
stepped out of the Tardis and into 1869. She placed a foot into the
snow and then drew it back, letting us see that she had actually made a
FOOTPRINT in the snow! I refer you to a great work by C. S. Lewis
entitled "The Great Divorce", in which the author implies that beings
from the future have no ability, at all, to alter the immutable past.
Indeed, in Lewis's story, the travelers into the past find the very
blades of grass stabbing into their feet (their feet cannot even alter
the position of a single blade of grass) and the leaves of trees are as
solid as the strongest steel. Nothing these time travelers do has the
slightest power to alter even the smallest part of "what was".

Apparently the writers of Doctor Who chose to dismiss this theory of C.
S. Lewis...but I do gratefully note that the Rose Footprint scene does
show that it was ACTUALLY CONSIDERED. Well done!

The argument that many people make, about the possibility of future
Time Travel, is simple: If time travel ever becomes possible we would
know it already. Surely there would be reports of strange
"out-of-place" people standing around and watching the events of
9-11-2001 in the city of New York. Surely there would be reports of
strange visitors at any one of hundreds of significant historical
events. Since we have no such reliable reports, we should be able to
conclude that time travel will NEVER become possible.

Jeffrey Alsip
Old Joe
2006-03-27 12:11:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@gmail.com
If time travel ever becomes possible we would
know it already. Surely there would be reports of strange
"out-of-place" people standing around and watching the events of
9-11-2001 in the city of New York. Surely there would be reports of
strange visitors at any one of hundreds of significant historical
events.
You've never been to Tavern, have you?
j***@gmail.com
2006-03-28 04:24:39 UTC
Permalink
I have to admit that the "Tavern" reference makes no sense at all...but
thanks for your response. Keep trying.
m***@sbcglobal.net
2006-03-28 04:34:52 UTC
Permalink
The Tavern is one place where Dr Who fans meet up in London.

(Umm.. I don't know which Tavern I've heard it mentioned. Being across the
ocean, I miss all this fun stuff.)
Post by j***@gmail.com
I have to admit that the "Tavern" reference makes no sense at all...but
thanks for your response. Keep trying.
j***@gmail.com
2006-03-28 04:45:54 UTC
Permalink
Man, I have got to get across this ocean. My family came here from
Alsip-en-la-dale in 1654. It's high time that I made my way back. You
can't imagine the dilemma of a Englishman trapped inside of an American
body.
The Doctor
2006-03-28 13:40:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@gmail.com
Man, I have got to get across this ocean. My family came here from
Alsip-en-la-dale in 1654. It's high time that I made my way back. You
can't imagine the dilemma of a Englishman trapped inside of an American
body.
So which flag do you wave?? The Union Jack? The Star-Spangled Banner?
--
Member - Liberal International
This is ***@nl2k.ab.ca Ici ***@nl2k.ab.ca
God Queen and country! Beware Anti-Christ rising!
Canada's New CONservatives - Same old Tory.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
The Doctor
2006-03-28 13:39:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
The Tavern is one place where Dr Who fans meet up in London.
What is the address?? How do we get there from Trafalgar Square?
--
Member - Liberal International
This is ***@nl2k.ab.ca Ici ***@nl2k.ab.ca
God Queen and country! Beware Anti-Christ rising!
Canada's New CONservatives - Same old Tory.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
m***@sbcglobal.net
2006-03-28 16:45:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Doctor
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
The Tavern is one place where Dr Who fans meet up in London.
What is the address?? How do we get there from Trafalgar Square?
--
Member - Liberal International
Email Mags Halliday - a Dr Who/Faction Paradox author & big fan - from her
blog page at:
http://moosiferjonesreading.blogspot.com/.
I've read posts from her and other authors mentioning it. (Think it was
over on Outpost Gallifrey.)

This other lists web pages of "Doctor Who Personalities" - authors, stars,
fan pages, Big Finish Gary Russell, etc:
http://www.doctorwhowebguide.net/sect12.shtml

http://www.doctorwhowebguide.net/sect12.shtml

-- maryjane
Cyvros
2006-03-27 12:17:19 UTC
Permalink
Well, if you read the most excellent BBC 1st Doctor adventure 'The Time
Travellers', there is an explanation delivered by the 1st Doctor. Every
time you exit the TARDIS, you change history. It's not as fixed as we
have been led to believe. What he said in 'The Aztecs' was untrue and
designed to stop Barbara from doing anything too rash. It explains why
the TARDIS scanners have always been so comprehensive.
Post by j***@gmail.com
The argument that many people make, about the possibility of future
Time Travel, is simple: If time travel ever becomes possible we would
know it already. Surely there would be reports of strange
"out-of-place" people standing around and watching the events of
9-11-2001 in the city of New York. Surely there would be reports of
strange visitors at any one of hundreds of significant historical
events. Since we have no such reliable reports, we should be able to
conclude that time travel will NEVER become possible.
I've always loved this argument, but I always think of how temporal
tourists are hardly going to be so dumb as to not blend in. And,
besides, there would be a myriad people looking at the Twin Towers or
watching Charles I's head get knocked off. I'm sure temporal tourist
guides would advise people to dress in clothing suitable to a certain
time period and act accordingly. You're not going to have people with
cameras in Hawaiian shirts not saluting Hitler in Nuremberg now, are
you? Surely people in the future are smarter and more discrete than
those now.

Cyv.
TedJMill
2006-03-27 17:23:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cyvros
Post by j***@gmail.com
The argument that many people make, about the possibility of future
Time Travel, is simple: If time travel ever becomes possible we would
know it already. Surely there would be reports of strange
"out-of-place" people standing around and watching the events of
9-11-2001 in the city of New York. Surely there would be reports of
strange visitors at any one of hundreds of significant historical
events. Since we have no such reliable reports, we should be able to
conclude that time travel will NEVER become possible.
I've always loved this argument, but I always think of how temporal
tourists are hardly going to be so dumb as to not blend in. And,
besides, there would be a myriad people looking at the Twin Towers or
watching Charles I's head get knocked off. I'm sure temporal tourist
guides would advise people to dress in clothing suitable to a certain
time period and act accordingly. You're not going to have people with
cameras in Hawaiian shirts not saluting Hitler in Nuremberg now, are
you? Surely people in the future are smarter and more discrete than
those now.
How about checking for time travellers on a more subtle, statistical
level?

For example, take 9/11 as an event that would draw time travellers.
If you examine hotel occupancy and short-term apartment rentals in
New York City with a good view of the Twin Towers, was there a
sudden surge in September 2001?

How about Lincoln's assassination? Did Ford's theater have a
sold-out performance that night, and how did it compare to business
for previous days and weeks?
Andy Leighton
2006-03-27 18:43:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by TedJMill
Post by Cyvros
Post by j***@gmail.com
The argument that many people make, about the possibility of future
Time Travel, is simple: If time travel ever becomes possible we would
know it already. Surely there would be reports of strange
"out-of-place" people standing around and watching the events of
9-11-2001 in the city of New York. Surely there would be reports of
strange visitors at any one of hundreds of significant historical
events. Since we have no such reliable reports, we should be able to
conclude that time travel will NEVER become possible.
I've always loved this argument, but I always think of how temporal
tourists are hardly going to be so dumb as to not blend in. And,
besides, there would be a myriad people looking at the Twin Towers or
watching Charles I's head get knocked off. I'm sure temporal tourist
guides would advise people to dress in clothing suitable to a certain
time period and act accordingly. You're not going to have people with
cameras in Hawaiian shirts not saluting Hitler in Nuremberg now, are
you? Surely people in the future are smarter and more discrete than
those now.
How about checking for time travellers on a more subtle, statistical
level?
For example, take 9/11 as an event that would draw time travellers.
If you examine hotel occupancy and short-term apartment rentals in
New York City with a good view of the Twin Towers, was there a
sudden surge in September 2001?
Why would they do that? Couldn't they zap in say 5 minutes before
it happened - watch the best bits and then zap out.
Post by TedJMill
How about Lincoln's assassination? Did Ford's theater have a
sold-out performance that night, and how did it compare to business
for previous days and weeks?
This one they would actually have to go to the theatre.

Personally I rather like the Kilworth short story _Let's All Go To
Golgotha_ which is a time travel story with a rather nice twist in
the tale.
--
Andy Leighton => ***@azaal.plus.com
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_
Dav Vandenbroucke
2006-03-28 00:00:19 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 12:23:21 -0500, "TedJMill"
Post by TedJMill
For example, take 9/11 as an event that would draw time travellers.
If you examine hotel occupancy and short-term apartment rentals in
New York City with a good view of the Twin Towers, was there a
sudden surge in September 2001?
You have to correct for all of the Jews who made themselves scarce, of
course!

Dav Vandenbroucke
davanden at cox dot net
j***@gmail.com
2006-03-28 04:31:00 UTC
Permalink
A damn good point! Do you know how we can get this information?
Doctor TOC
2006-03-28 18:51:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by TedJMill
For example, take 9/11 as an event that would draw time travellers.
If you examine hotel occupancy and short-term apartment rentals in
New York City with a good view of the Twin Towers, was there a
sudden surge in September 2001?
How about Lincoln's assassination? Did Ford's theater have a
sold-out performance that night, and how did it compare to business
for previous days and weeks?
This reminds me of C.L. Moore's classic story "Vintage Season" (made into
the "not terrible, but not great" movie "The Grand Tour", with Jeff
Bridges). It was one of the first, if not *the* first, stories to deal with
the idea of time tourism. In it, a guy discovers that a tour group who have
come to his small town are in fact time travellers from the distant future,
come to view the great disasters of history...

Doctor TOC
The Doctor
2006-03-28 22:30:32 UTC
Permalink
What if Magna Carta never happened?? Anyone seen King's Demons?
--
Member - Liberal International
This is ***@nl2k.ab.ca Ici ***@nl2k.ab.ca
God Queen and country! Beware Anti-Christ rising!
Canada's New CONservatives - Same old Tory.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Stephen Wilson
2006-03-27 17:42:29 UTC
Permalink
Surely people in the future are smarter and more discrete than those now.
You'd certainly like to think so. Yet I look around at people today and
wonder whether we're really much smarter than our caveman ancestors...
MHW
2006-03-27 18:18:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stephen Wilson
You'd certainly like to think so. Yet I look around at people today and
wonder whether we're really much smarter than our caveman ancestors...
Well, we're smart enough not to live in caves for a start.

--
MHW
Stephen Wilson
2006-03-27 18:29:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by MHW
Post by Stephen Wilson
You'd certainly like to think so. Yet I look around at people today and
wonder whether we're really much smarter than our caveman ancestors...
Well, we're smart enough not to live in caves for a start.
Not much else has changed though. We still believe in God(s), we still beat
each other up, we still can't find a form of government that works. And the
one sign of any advancement - our technology - lets us destroy the Earth
that is our home, along with thousands of species of animals (currently
estimated to be between 4,000 and 27,000 per year), more rapidly with every
year.
MHW
2006-03-27 18:46:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stephen Wilson
Not much else has changed though.
Were you to join our paleolithic ancestors for an extended period, I'm sure
you'd return from the experience a little less sure of that.

Me, I'm happy to be part of an imperfect now, with all the advantages of a
welfare state, national health service and free schooling -- and all that
other stuff which is all too easy to take for granted.

--
MHW
Stephen Wilson
2006-03-27 18:59:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by MHW
Were you to join our paleolithic ancestors for an extended period, I'm
sure you'd return from the experience a little less sure of that.
Me, I'm happy to be part of an imperfect now, with all the advantages of a
welfare state, national health service and free schooling -- and all that
other stuff which is all too easy to take for granted.
You do so at the expense of future generations. In my opinion of course. I
have a feeling that in a couple of decades, people are going to be cursing
the present generation, asking why we were selfish enough to exhaust coal
and oil supplies, deforest the globe, leave so much waste in massive
landfills, pollute the atmosphere and kill off all the fish in the seas.
MHW
2006-03-27 20:15:34 UTC
Permalink
I have a feeling that in a couple of decades, people are going to be
cursing the present generation, asking why we were selfish enough to
exhaust coal and oil supplies, deforest the globe, leave so much waste in
massive landfills, pollute the atmosphere and kill off all the fish in the
seas.
Oh, if you're going to indulge in this kind of pseudo-apocalyptic prophetic
posturing, then I'm not playing. Any fool can predict the end of the world.

--
MHW
Stephen Wilson
2006-03-28 16:48:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by MHW
Oh, if you're going to indulge in this kind of pseudo-apocalyptic
prophetic posturing, then I'm not playing. Any fool can predict the end
of the world.
OK, this is seriously off-topic now, so this is my last post on the subject.

However, your response shows just how narrow-minded and uneducated you are.
I'm not prohesising the end of the world. But I'm aware of what's going on
around me. Unlike you.

Outside your cosy little world, did you know that 95% of the Earth's
population have never even made a telephone call? Did you know that it is
recommended by our government not to eat more than 2 portions of fish per
week due to the amount of metal they've absorbed because of pollution? Did
you know that cases of asthma are reaching epidemic proportions in
"civilised" countries?
MHW
2006-03-28 19:14:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stephen Wilson
However, your response shows just how narrow-minded and uneducated you are.
You are, of course, correct. I am undone by your words.
Post by Stephen Wilson
I'm not prohesising the end of the world. But I'm aware of what's going on
around me. Unlike you.
I am entirely blind to the world's ills. Pray, enlighten me.
Post by Stephen Wilson
Outside your cosy little world, did you know that 95% of the Earth's
population have never even made a telephone call?
No. And neither do you. Estimates vary between 'a third', 'perhaps a half',
'at least half', '66 out of every 100' and 'as much as 80%'. I'd be
interested to know how you arrived at your figure.
Post by Stephen Wilson
Did you know that it is recommended by our government not to eat more than
2 portions of fish per
Post by Stephen Wilson
week due to the amount of metal they've absorbed because of pollution?
Not quite. They make that recommendation to pregnant women, and only for
certain kinds of fish (tuna, marlin, etc).
Post by Stephen Wilson
Did you know that cases of asthma are reaching epidemic proportions in
"civilised" countries?

I'm aware that current research suggests there's been an increase in the
rates of asthma in developed countries over the past few decades. There is
also research to suggest that the British 'epidemic' peaked a decade ago,
and that prevalence has fallen. I'd venture to suggest that the end is not
quite nigh, young man.

--
MHW
Dav Vandenbroucke
2006-03-28 00:00:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cyvros
I always think of how temporal
tourists are hardly going to be so dumb as to not blend in.
Of course they are. They're tourists. People get stupid when they go
on vacation.


Dav Vandenbroucke
davanden at cox dot net
Oozrus
2006-03-28 02:18:10 UTC
Permalink
Interesting thread - except for the cliched leftist whining.

Does not quantum theory which suggests that all possibilities are played
out in parrallel alternate timelines - including possibilities that
include time travel and time travellers interacting and interfering with
the past? It's nice to suggest that time travellers will obey rules
governing their behavior while time travelling, but I believe that the
universe is designed not to fall apart when certain sentient species
break time travelling rules - as is inevitable under infinite probability.

Just because we have not observed time travel in our time line - does
that mean it is impossible?

For example, stipulate that there are no time travellers witnessing 9/11
in our timeline. If a time traveller 100 years from now travels back to
9/11, then an alternate time line is immediately created and all quantum
variables are reset because a new variable (the time traveller's
presense) has been introduced into that time line. This does not
destroy the original time line - it just exists in parallel along with
all of the other timelines that already existed in parallel. People and
events who are "native" to that time line may interact with the time
traveller and say "wow, time travel is really possible!!" - but that
just has not happened to us.

I suspect that it would be dangerous for the time traveller to then
travel 100 years forward in time again from that altered because that
would then be a different future played out over the next 100 years.
The time traveller would need to somehow keep the "door open" to help
guarantee that he returned to his original timeline.

I have always viewed the eye of harmony as such a device that keeps the
Time Lords and their TARDISes aligned to a certain set of (infinite)
timelines in which the Time Lords retain power.

What really makes my head hurt is that each point in time has an
infinite number of future probabilities, which suggests to me that an
infinite number of time travellers should theoretically get the same
idea to return to the same shared point in their past. Won't their time
machines collide?

Dave from PA, USA
j***@gmail.com
2006-03-28 04:42:57 UTC
Permalink
I made an attempt at a response to this, but I don't see it posted.
Does not quantum theory which suggests that all possibilities are played out in parrallel alternate timelines
So you adhere to the theory of "multiple timelines", as were made
famous in the Back To The Future movies starring Michael J. Fox. Can we
then assume that you consider every trip, that the Doctor made, into
the past to be the first thread of a SEPERATE timeline? Indeed, can we
consider the entire life of the many Doctors to be nothing more than a
seperate (and Doctor specific) timeline that has no relation at all to
the reality that you and I and every other being in the Galaxy
experience?
suggests to me that an infinite number of time travellers should theoretically get the same idea to return to the same shared point in their past
That is my second point. Isn't it logical to conclude that at least ONE
of them would have done something to betray his presence? A record
should therefore exist...and it doesn't (as far as I know).
Doctor TOC
2006-03-28 19:14:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@gmail.com
So you adhere to the theory of "multiple timelines", as were made
famous in the Back To The Future movies starring Michael J. Fox.
Actually, "Back To The Future" and the subsequent sequels all posited a
single mutable history, one that could be overwritten by changes to the past
(hence the whole palaver with Marty McFly slowly disappearing as his past
was erased and overwritten). If McFly had been branching into a new timeline
every time he travelled into the past, he wouldn't have had to worry about
changing his history.
Post by j***@gmail.com
That is my second point. Isn't it logical to conclude that at least ONE
of them would have done something to betray his presence? A record
should therefore exist...and it doesn't (as far as I know).
How would we know though? For the vast majority of human history, people
who've seemed out of place have been killed, locked up, occasionally ignored
but usually contained in some way. For someone to identify themselves as a
time traveller in a way that would survive to be interpreted by us in the
present, they'd have to have done something fairly drastic. That in turn
would have garnered the attention of society, and humans are notoriously
unforgiving to those who appear strange (the Salem Witch Trials are a nice
example). Recorded human history covers a vast span of time, so even
assuming that a time traveller did slip up and reveal himself, there's no
guaranteeing that the witnesses at the time would even realize what that
meant, or record it in a way that we'd understand.

Doctor TOC
Paul Harman
2006-03-28 09:05:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Oozrus
Does not quantum theory which suggests that all possibilities are played
out in parrallel alternate timelines - including possibilities that
include time travel and time travellers interacting and interfering with
the past?
It's not time travel if you end up in a parallel universe. It's universe
hopping.

Paul
m***@sbcglobal.net
2006-03-28 12:05:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Harman
Post by Oozrus
Does not quantum theory which suggests that all possibilities are played
out in parrallel alternate timelines - including possibilities that
include time travel and time travellers interacting and interfering with
the past?
It's not time travel if you end up in a parallel universe. It's universe
hopping.
Paul
Ooo...ooo Sliders, loved that show (when it had the original cast). Don't
know it you ever got to see that in the UK. The invention used was meant
to be time travel, but actually caused time travel by universe hopping.
(And like the TARDIS, the steering was wonky.)

-- maryjane
j***@gmail.com
2006-04-06 18:37:10 UTC
Permalink
Ah! Excellent! So you adhere to the "multiple timeline" theory that was
made famous in the Back To The Future movies. Can we then assume that
ANY trip made by the Doctor, into the past, resulted in a DIFFERENT
timeline being created? Is every adventure of the Doctor's, in fact,
only an event of his own personal timeline...and not part of anyone
elses static reality?
Cyvros
2006-04-07 03:15:54 UTC
Permalink
Well, if I use my theory, I'd say that the Doctor's adventures occur in
a parallel universe incredibly similar to ours. It has, of course, some
differences, such as the existance of the L.O.N.G.B.O.W., U.N.I.T. and
U.N.I.S.Y.C. organisations, the existance of the I.S.C. and the Polar
Base in 1986, etc.
Post by j***@gmail.com
The point of the story: You cannot change the past.
There are many paradoxes which lead to the same conclusion. The
predestination paradox is among them (also referred to as causality).
But Doctor Who writers have just gone and ripped apart causality so
many times.
Cyvros
2006-04-07 04:20:01 UTC
Permalink
Well, if I use my theory, I'd say that the Doctor's adventures occur in
a parallel universe incredibly similar to ours. It has, of course, some
differences, such as the existance of the L.O.N.G.B.O.W., U.N.I.T. and
U.N.I.S.Y.C. organisations, the existance of the I.S.C. and the Polar
Base in 1986, etc.
Post by j***@gmail.com
The point of the story: You cannot change the past.
There are many paradoxes which lead to the same conclusion. The
predestination paradox is among them (also referred to as causality).
But Doctor Who writers have just gone and ripped apart causality so
many times.
j***@gmail.com
2006-03-28 07:48:03 UTC
Permalink
Forgive me for saying so, but aren't tourist (in general) pretty dumn?
I mean now days the people you see touring around (especially the young
people) are just descendents of rich mercents. Can we really believe it
will be any different in the future? People like us will have to take a
backseat to the idle rich, just like we do today.
Mal Franks
2006-03-28 13:02:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cyvros
I've always loved this argument, but I always think of how temporal
tourists are hardly going to be so dumb as to not blend in. And,
besides, there would be a myriad people looking at the Twin Towers or
watching Charles I's head get knocked off. I'm sure temporal tourist
guides would advise people to dress in clothing suitable to a certain
time period and act accordingly. You're not going to have people with
cameras in Hawaiian shirts not saluting Hitler in Nuremberg now, are
you? Surely people in the future are smarter and more discrete than
those now.
Cyv.
iirc there was a novel/short story about time tourism and the tourists
were somehow mentally programmed to not change history.

The main character works for the tourist agency and ends up at the point
where Pontius Pilate asks the people who is to be given clemency and the
people ask for Barabas to be released not Jesus. The character is
horrified to realise that all the people demanding this are fellow
tourists.
Andy Leighton
2006-03-28 13:34:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mal Franks
iirc there was a novel/short story about time tourism and the tourists
were somehow mentally programmed to not change history.
The main character works for the tourist agency and ends up at the point
where Pontius Pilate asks the people who is to be given clemency and the
people ask for Barabas to be released not Jesus. The character is
horrified to realise that all the people demanding this are fellow
tourists.
It was a short story and it was _Let's Go To Golgotha_ by Garry Kilworth
as I had previously mentioned. It was quite an amazing story considering
that up to that point he was unpublished. It was an entry in a short story
competition organised by The Sunday Times.
--
Andy Leighton => ***@azaal.plus.com
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_
Mal Franks
2006-03-28 15:33:39 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@azaal.plus.com>, ***@azaal.plus.com
says...
Post by Andy Leighton
It was a short story and it was _Let's Go To Golgotha_ by Garry Kilworth
as I had previously mentioned. It was quite an amazing story considering
that up to that point he was unpublished. It was an entry in a short story
competition organised by The Sunday Times.
Ah, that's what it's called. missed your post mentioning it. I loved the
story, can't remember where I read it though, but it's been quite a few
years. :)

Mal
Chancellor_Goth
2006-03-29 01:03:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mal Franks
The main character works for the tourist agency and ends up at the point
where Pontius Pilate asks the people who is to be given clemency and the
people ask for Barabas to be released not Jesus. The character is
horrified to realise that all the people demanding this are fellow
tourists.
Why horrified? That's the outcome history records.
MHW
2006-03-29 08:45:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chancellor_Goth
Why horrified? That's the outcome history records.
It's the outcome the Bible records...

--
MHW
The Doctor
2006-03-29 14:28:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by MHW
Post by Chancellor_Goth
Why horrified? That's the outcome history records.
It's the outcome the Bible records...
Still imagine if some of the events did not occur. That would be tragic.
--
Member - Liberal International
This is ***@nl2k.ab.ca Ici ***@nl2k.ab.ca
God Queen and country! Beware Anti-Christ rising!
Canada's New CONservatives - Same old Tory.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Chancellor_Goth
2006-03-29 21:13:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Doctor
Post by MHW
Post by Chancellor_Goth
Why horrified? That's the outcome history records.
It's the outcome the Bible records...
Still imagine if some of the events did not occur. That would be tragic.
But they did - that's the point - why should the Traveller be horrified, if
things are going according to history?

I'd only worry if the newcomers asked for JEsus to be freed, and averted the
crucifixion...
The Doctor
2006-03-30 01:54:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chancellor_Goth
I'd only worry if the newcomers asked for JEsus to be freed, and averted the
crucifixion...
Correct you are Chancellor. If the Crucifixion were to be averted,
my guess is that the Mandragora Helix wins.
--
Member - Liberal International
This is ***@nl2k.ab.ca Ici ***@nl2k.ab.ca
God Queen and country! Beware Anti-Christ rising!
Canada's New CONservatives - Same old Tory.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Chancellor_Goth
2006-04-02 15:46:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Doctor
Post by Chancellor_Goth
I'd only worry if the newcomers asked for JEsus to be freed, and averted the
crucifixion...
Correct you are Chancellor. If the Crucifixion were to be averted,
my guess is that the Mandragora Helix wins.
No doubt you are spot on in your deductions.
--
Frank
"Incidentally, I'm a bit alarmed by your assumptions that thinking and
laughing are mutually exclusive activities. Best wishes, Douglas Adams"
Andy Leighton
2006-03-30 08:24:54 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 29 Mar 2006 16:13:59 -0500,
Post by Chancellor_Goth
Post by The Doctor
Post by MHW
Post by Chancellor_Goth
Why horrified? That's the outcome history records.
It's the outcome the Bible records...
Still imagine if some of the events did not occur. That would be tragic.
But they did - that's the point - why should the Traveller be horrified, if
things are going according to history?
I'd only worry if the newcomers asked for JEsus to be freed, and averted the
crucifixion...
No. The point is that it is a classic example of the closed-loop time-travel
paradox. If there were no time travellers at all - then there wouldn't have
been a crowd to call for the release of Barrabas and so Jesus would survive.
As there were time travellers (and they constituted the entire mob) and they
(and only they) called for the release of Barrabas, Jesus got crucified.

The horror at that point is two fold. Firstly that the presence of time
travellers has changed history from what it would have been if there were
no time travellers. Secondly that the time-travellers are responsible for
the death of Jesus (and as they are Christian, they have all the guilt that
entails).
--
Andy Leighton => ***@azaal.plus.com
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_
Chancellor_Goth
2006-04-02 15:44:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andy Leighton
On Wed, 29 Mar 2006 16:13:59 -0500,
Post by Chancellor_Goth
Post by The Doctor
Post by MHW
Post by Chancellor_Goth
Why horrified? That's the outcome history records.
It's the outcome the Bible records...
Still imagine if some of the events did not occur. That would be tragic.
But they did - that's the point - why should the Traveller be horrified, if
things are going according to history?
I'd only worry if the newcomers asked for JEsus to be freed, and averted the
crucifixion...
No. The point is that it is a classic example of the closed-loop time-travel
paradox. If there were no time travellers at all - then there wouldn't have
been a crowd to call for the release of Barrabas and so Jesus would survive.
As there were time travellers (and they constituted the entire mob) and they
(and only they) called for the release of Barrabas, Jesus got crucified.
The horror at that point is two fold. Firstly that the presence of time
travellers has changed history from what it would have been if there were
no time travellers. Secondly that the time-travellers are responsible for
the death of Jesus (and as they are Christian, they have all the guilt that
entails).
How does he know it "changed" history? How does he know where in the loop
the call started? It's like Christopher Reeve's watch in that time travel
anomaly film. The one that never actually got manufactured, as he took it
into the past and collected it later...

The chanters obviously knew, as Christians, what got chanted.... and the
wHOLE POINT of Christianity is that Jesus gets crucified and comes back, so
they're not doing anything wrong... perhaps the author misunderstood the
point of Christianity?
Andy Leighton
2006-04-02 17:06:35 UTC
Permalink
Only some very slight Doctor Who content below.

On Sun, 02 Apr 2006 11:44:01 -0400,
Post by Chancellor_Goth
Post by Andy Leighton
No. The point is that it is a classic example of the closed-loop time-travel
paradox. If there were no time travellers at all - then there wouldn't have
been a crowd to call for the release of Barrabas and so Jesus would survive.
As there were time travellers (and they constituted the entire mob) and they
(and only they) called for the release of Barrabas, Jesus got crucified.
The horror at that point is two fold. Firstly that the presence of time
travellers has changed history from what it would have been if there were
no time travellers. Secondly that the time-travellers are responsible for
the death of Jesus (and as they are Christian, they have all the guilt that
entails).
How does he know it "changed" history?
Without the time-travellers there would be no crowd to shout for
Barrabas to be released. In the story, Pilate was portrayed as minded to
release Jesus.
Post by Chancellor_Goth
How does he know where in the loop
the call started? It's like Christopher Reeve's watch in that time travel
anomaly film. The one that never actually got manufactured, as he took it
into the past and collected it later...
Exactly - the closed loop time-travel paradox as I said previously.
BTW the film is _Somewhere In Time_ and was adapted from the novel
_Bid Time Return_ by Richard Matheson (by Matheson himself). A similar
bootstrap paradox can be seen in the Doctor Who webcast _Real Time_
although that isn't executed quite as well.
Post by Chancellor_Goth
The chanters obviously knew, as Christians, what got chanted.... and the
wHOLE POINT of Christianity is that Jesus gets crucified and comes back, so
they're not doing anything wrong...
Sure but most Christians still believe that Judas did wrong ...

Anyway the whole point of the story that the crucifixion occurred because of
the time-travel. That it had always occurred because of the time-travel.
That the entirety of the history from that point forward was dependant on
time-travel. If they hadn't gone back to Golgotha - Jesus might have lived
to a ripe old age and Christianity might not have happened (as we know it).

I also guess you wouldn't like Moorcock's _Behold The Man_ either. In this
the time-traveller goes back and finds that Jesus is a mentally retarded
hunchback. The time-traveller then assumes the role of Jesus and eventually
dies on the cross.
--
Andy Leighton => ***@azaal.plus.com
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_
Chancellor_Goth
2006-04-05 07:22:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andy Leighton
Only some very slight Doctor Who content below.
On Sun, 02 Apr 2006 11:44:01 -0400,
Post by Chancellor_Goth
Post by Andy Leighton
No. The point is that it is a classic example of the closed-loop time-travel
paradox. If there were no time travellers at all - then there wouldn't have
been a crowd to call for the release of Barrabas and so Jesus would survive.
As there were time travellers (and they constituted the entire mob) and they
(and only they) called for the release of Barrabas, Jesus got crucified.
The horror at that point is two fold. Firstly that the presence of time
travellers has changed history from what it would have been if there were
no time travellers. Secondly that the time-travellers are responsible for
the death of Jesus (and as they are Christian, they have all the guilt that
entails).
How does he know it "changed" history?
Without the time-travellers there would be no crowd to shout for
Barrabas to be released. In the story, Pilate was portrayed as minded to
release Jesus.
Post by Chancellor_Goth
How does he know where in the loop
the call started? It's like Christopher Reeve's watch in that time travel
anomaly film. The one that never actually got manufactured, as he took it
into the past and collected it later...
Exactly - the closed loop time-travel paradox as I said previously.
BTW the film is _Somewhere In Time_ and was adapted from the novel
_Bid Time Return_ by Richard Matheson (by Matheson himself). A similar
bootstrap paradox can be seen in the Doctor Who webcast _Real Time_
although that isn't executed quite as well.
Post by Chancellor_Goth
The chanters obviously knew, as Christians, what got chanted.... and the
wHOLE POINT of Christianity is that Jesus gets crucified and comes back, so
they're not doing anything wrong...
Sure but most Christians still believe that Judas did wrong ...
Anyway the whole point of the story that the crucifixion occurred because of
the time-travel. That it had always occurred because of the time-travel.
That the entirety of the history from that point forward was dependant on
time-travel. If they hadn't gone back to Golgotha - Jesus might have lived
to a ripe old age and Christianity might not have happened (as we know it).
I also guess you wouldn't like Moorcock's _Behold The Man_ either. In this
the time-traveller goes back and finds that Jesus is a mentally retarded
hunchback. The time-traveller then assumes the role of Jesus and eventually
dies on the cross.
Well those loop things are all reliant on predestination and ignore quantum
uncertainty. They're a bit boring but do at least show time to be one
continuum and we only see a small 'present' of something that might be
viewed as a whole.

I've got "Behold The Man". Yes, it was a bit tedious, but most Moorcock
is....

Anyway, if there had been no crucifixion and resurrection, Jesus would be as
forgotten as the 1563 other Judaic cults in that area at that time...
MHW
2006-04-05 11:45:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chancellor_Goth
Well those loop things are all reliant on predestination and ignore
quantum uncertainty.
I suspect you mean the Copenhagen interpretation in the latter reference:
'uncertainty' refers to the observation of momentum & position.

--
MHW
j***@gmail.com
2006-04-06 18:22:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cyvros
Well, if you read the most excellent BBC 1st Doctor adventure 'The Time
Travellers', there is an explanation delivered by the 1st Doctor. Every

time you exit the TARDIS, you change history. It's not as fixed as we
have been led to believe.

I am aware of this book, in fact I have a copy (I have a copy of every
Doctor Who book). But I specifically mentioned OTHER writers
interpretation of time travel. In addition I would refer you to the
first "Changewar" novel by Fritz Leiber. The first story involves a man
who just inherited $10mil from a dead uncle and has his wife comes down
the stairs and shoots him between the eyes. He is then recruited, by
the time travelers, to fight the Changewar. When he is, one day, left
alone in the time portal room he begins a series of attempts to go back
and prevent his own death. It takes him about a half-dozen tries before
he finally gets it right (or so he thinks). He grabs a glass of
champaign and heads out to the balcony to celebrate his new life as a
millionaire...and gets hit between the eyes by a 38calibre lead
meteorite! The point of the story: You cannot change the past.
Daibhid Ceanaideach
2006-03-27 13:33:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@gmail.com
The argument that many people make, about the possibility
of future Time Travel, is simple: If time travel ever
becomes possible we would know it already. Surely there
would be reports of strange "out-of-place" people standing
around and watching the events of 9-11-2001 in the city of
New York. Surely there would be reports of strange visitors
at any one of hundreds of significant historical events.
Since we have no such reliable reports, we should be able
to conclude that time travel will NEVER become possible.
Not necessarily. An interesting theory I recall reading
somewhere was that there might be a kind of time machine that
required a sending station, and a receiving station. So you
could travel through time, but never to before the
construction of the first time machine (because there's no
receiving station there.)
--
Dave
Official Absentee of EU Skiffeysoc
http://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/sesoc
"Sometimes scientific progress requires personal sacrifice.
Personally, I sacrifice Beaker." -Dr Bunsen Honeydew
j***@gmail.com
2006-03-28 03:58:56 UTC
Permalink
Yeah, I remeber that series! I can't recall the author, but I am sure
it was a woman. I remember the second book involved the main character
traveling back to save an endangered American Indian tribe...and to do
so he took on the disguise of a talking, man sized, upright walking
coyote!

Marvelous stuff! You guys are great!
Andy Leighton
2006-03-28 07:31:54 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 22:58:56 -0500,
Post by j***@gmail.com
Yeah, I remeber that series! I can't recall the author, but I am sure
it was a woman. I remember the second book involved the main character
traveling back to save an endangered American Indian tribe...and to do
so he took on the disguise of a talking, man sized, upright walking
coyote!
Do you mean the Company series by Kage Baker? One of the books was
called _Sky Coyote_. The ones where agents rescue doomed objects from
the past (like books from the Library Of Alexandria) just before they
are destroyed so that they can be sold for huge profit in the future.

BTW - could you quote some of the message you are replying to - it makes
it a tad easier for the rest of us.
--
Andy Leighton => ***@azaal.plus.com
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_
j***@gmail.com
2006-03-28 07:40:53 UTC
Permalink
Sorry about my lack of posting skills.

Yes, the Kage Baker series...and Sky Coyote was the book I was
referring to. Is this the series that corresponds with the original
reply?
solar penguin
2006-03-28 08:25:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Andy Leighton
BTW - could you quote some of the message you are replying
to - it makes it a tad easier for the rest of us.
Sorry about my lack of posting skills.
...without quoting!

Jeffrey, if you're accessing this group via Google Groups, then...

a) Think about switching to a proper newsreader instead.

b) Until then, don't click on the normal "Reply" link at the bottom of
the message. Click on "show options" at the top of the message and then
click on the new "reply" link that appears. This will quote the message
for you. (Google Groups also has two other ways to quote the message
for you, but this is the simplest.)
--
___ _ ___ _
/ __| ___ | | __ _ _ _ | _ \ ___ _ _ __ _ _ _ (_) _ _
\__ \/ _ \| |/ _` || '_| | _// -_)| ' \ / _` || || || || ' \
|___/\___/|_|\__,_||_| |_| \___||_||_|\__, | \_,_||_||_||_|
|___/
http://www.freewebs.com/solar_penguin/

** He won't, I don't know what time it is.

** I'm sorry but I think it was Isaac's own favorite, so I wasn't an
asshole.
j***@gmail.com
2006-03-28 14:18:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by solar penguin
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Andy Leighton
BTW - could you quote some of the message you are replying
to - it makes it a tad easier for the rest of us.
Sorry about my lack of posting skills.
...without quoting!
Jeffrey, if you're accessing this group via Google Groups, then...
a) Think about switching to a proper newsreader instead.
b) Until then, don't click on the normal "Reply" link at the bottom of
the message. Click on "show options" at the top of the message and then
click on the new "reply" link that appears. This will quote the message
for you. (Google Groups also has two other ways to quote the message
for you, but this is the simplest.)
Yeah, this works well. It's much easier when I can see the previous
post. Thanks for the tip!
The Doctor
2006-03-28 13:39:01 UTC
Permalink
This does cause a lot of scenarios. How do we know if there are
other Tine Lords out there pre-Time War?
--
Member - Liberal International
This is ***@nl2k.ab.ca Ici ***@nl2k.ab.ca
God Queen and country! Beware Anti-Christ rising!
Canada's New CONservatives - Same old Tory.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Doctor TOC
2006-03-27 14:23:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@gmail.com
The second, and much more subtle, question was asked when Rose first
stepped out of the Tardis and into 1869. She placed a foot into the
snow and then drew it back, letting us see that she had actually made a
FOOTPRINT in the snow! I refer you to a great work by C. S. Lewis
entitled "The Great Divorce", in which the author implies that beings
from the future have no ability, at all, to alter the immutable past.
Indeed, in Lewis's story, the travelers into the past find the very
blades of grass stabbing into their feet (their feet cannot even alter
the position of a single blade of grass) and the leaves of trees are as
solid as the strongest steel. Nothing these time travelers do has the
slightest power to alter even the smallest part of "what was".
Nice idea, but inconsistently executed. If the travellers could alter
nothing at all, then they wouldn't even be able to arrive in the past, since
their additinal mass would create a tiny change to the mass of the Earth.
They'd be unable to move, since that movement would alter the pattern of the
molecules in the air. And they'd be utterly invisible, since to be otherwise
would require changes in the patterns of photons that should have passed
through the space they occupy but now have something to bounce off.
Post by j***@gmail.com
The argument that many people make, about the possibility of future
Time Travel, is simple: If time travel ever becomes possible we would
know it already. Surely there would be reports of strange
"out-of-place" people standing around and watching the events of
9-11-2001 in the city of New York. Surely there would be reports of
strange visitors at any one of hundreds of significant historical
events. Since we have no such reliable reports, we should be able to
conclude that time travel will NEVER become possible.
In science, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. All we can say
from our failure to detect time travellers is that we've failed to detect
time travellers.

Most time machines being given serious consideration today will not allow
travel beyond the devices activation period. Turn on the machine on
Wednesday, and Wednesday is as far back as you can travel. So, we could say
from our non-observation of time travellers that time travel has not become
possible *yet*, even putting aside the possibility that they might be
hiding, and that history has lots of records of anachronistic and anomalous
objects turning up.

Another possibility is that history might be mutable, and that the
travellers are taking as much care as possible not to alter the past, since
they don't have any records of time travellers showing up at ground zero
either. Yet another might be that time travel doesn't get perfected for a
while yet, and since a lot of the current theories believe that travellers
to the past end up stuck in another universe, few may be willing to take a
trip this far back into the past and be unable to get back home.

Doctor TOC
j***@gmail.com
2006-03-28 04:15:00 UTC
Permalink
Excellent. A wonderfully intelegent response. Let me try to compound
If the travellers could alter nothing at all, then they wouldn't even be able to arrive in the past, since
their additinal mass would create a tiny change to the mass of the Earth.
Indeed, in the C. S. Lewis story, that I referenced, the travelers were
nothing more than wraths in the past. They had no real substance and no
ability to effect the slightest change. Isn't it cool to realize that
this man, who drank Brandy with JRR Tolkein, actually sat and thought
about these problems a full 50 years ago? He was one of the great
thinkers of the last century...and you and I, and the other intellects
on this thread, are quickly approaching this mans level of mental
ability.
history has lots of records of anachronistic and anomalous objects turning up
I have no desire whatsoever to counter your assertion. I would just ask
you, if I may, to give me a few examples of what you refer to in the
above statement. I ask out of pure fascination. Do you think it might
be possible for us to develop a list of historical occurences that can
only be explained by the presence of time travelers from the future?
Give me your examples and I will immediately try to come up with some
of my own.
few may be willing to take a trip this far back into the past
This one is the easiest. Tell me truthfully (try to be honest), if the
possibility existed wouldn't you be more than willing to take the risk?
I can tell YOU truthfully that I am very comfortable and live a good
life...but if it were possible to take a trip into the past (no matter
what the risks) I would volunteer without taking a single breath! I
have to assume, logically, that there must be future men who would feel
the same way.
Doctor TOC
2006-03-28 20:05:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@gmail.com
history has lots of records of anachronistic and anomalous objects turning up
I have no desire whatsoever to counter your assertion. I would just ask
you, if I may, to give me a few examples of what you refer to in the
above statement.
Off the top of my head; The Baghdad Batteries; the Piri Map; the Mystery
Airship of 1896; the Fisher Canyon Footprint (the fossil of a well-cut,
double-stitched leather shoe found in Triassic limestone in 1927); The de
Witt Nail (found embedded inside a freshly mined gold nugget in 1851); the
petrified stone-mason's yard and tools discovered in Aix-en-Provence, France
(found, in 1788, in sandstone currently estimated to be 300 million years
old), to name but a handful.

None of these, of course, are conclusive proof of time travel. Some of them
are highly questionable, and some are undoubtedly fakes. But they *are* part
of the historical record. Though they tend to be dismissed or ignored by the
majority, if physical evidence for time travel actually exists, it lies
among these objects and those like them.
Post by j***@gmail.com
Do you think it might
be possible for us to develop a list of historical occurences that can
only be explained by the presence of time travelers from the future?
Well, this is a problem for me. While I think it's possible to come up with
a list of events that *might* be explained by the existence of time
travellers, it'd be very, very hard to come up with something that could
only be explained by time travel.

For instance; a woman about to get on a plane gets a phone call from a
mysterious stranger telling her not to travel that day. She stays at home,
and the plane crashes, killing all on board. Sure, it could have been a time
traveller warning her in order to alter the past. Or it could have been a
form of precognition, either on her part or that of a stranger. Or she could
just have had a brief psychotic break triggered by a fear of flying, and
gotten very, very lucky.

Ruling out every single other possibility is extremely hard, since there may
be other possibilities we don't know about yet, aside from time travel.
Post by j***@gmail.com
few may be willing to take a trip this far back into the past
This one is the easiest. Tell me truthfully (try to be honest), if the
possibility existed wouldn't you be more than willing to take the risk?
If it was a one-way trip? Truthfully, I wouldn't go. I am perfectly adapted
for life in the 21st Century. Going back even a few decades would render
almost all my work skills useless, deny me some critical healthcare and
guarantee I'd never see my wife again. If you can't return to share what
you've experienced, what's the point?

I'm sure that, like you, there would be plenty of people like you who'd leap
at the chance, but their numbers would likely be small. If travel to the
past creates a branching universe (currently the most likely hypothesis),
then those left behind would have no proof at all that time travel does
anything other than utterly destroy the traveller. With no knowledge of the
past to be gained (since the travellers would find themselves in a new
universe), for those left behind, the travellers might as well be simply
hurling themselves from a tall building. I can't imagine such a process
would be cheap in terms of resources, so all you'd have invented is a very
expensive form of apparent suicide.

Another reason why such travellers, if they exist, might be laying low is
that their knowledge of the future becomes increasingly unreliable the more
changes they introduce to the past. When a time traveller uses his knowledge
of future stock exchange trends to make a fortune, he only has a limited
amount of time before his investments and his success start to change the
way the market behaves, rendering his future knowledge obsolete. The longer
a traveller can keep history on roughly the same track, the longer his or
her future knowledge remains relevant and therefore useful.

Doctor TOC
John Elliott
2006-03-28 20:39:14 UTC
Permalink
***@gmail.com <***@gmail.com> wrote:
: Indeed, in the C. S. Lewis story, that I referenced, the travelers were
: nothing more than wraths in the past. They had no real substance and no
: ability to effect the slightest change. Isn't it cool to realize that
: this man, who drank Brandy with JRR Tolkein, actually sat and thought
: about these problems a full 50 years ago?

You're misremembering. His characters didn't travel into the past; they
were visiting Heaven, and found it difficult (but not quite impossible) to
affect the things there, which were much more real than the visitors.
However, he acknowledged in the introduction that this idea was based on a
"scientifiction" story he had read where the hero did travel into the past;
the rec.arts.sf.written newsgroup FAQ suggests that this is 'most likely
Charles F. Hall's "The Man Who Lived Backwards"'.
--
John Elliott
MTKnife
2006-03-29 00:58:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@gmail.com
Indeed, in the C. S. Lewis story, that I referenced, the travelers were
nothing more than wraths in the past. They had no real substance and no
ability to effect the slightest change. Isn't it cool to realize that
this man, who drank Brandy with JRR Tolkein, actually sat and thought
about these problems a full 50 years ago? He was one of the great
thinkers of the last century...and you and I, and the other intellects
on this thread, are quickly approaching this mans level of mental
ability.
Hrm. I read The Great Divorce in high school...I don't remember it
being about time travel. I remember it being about the Afterlife, and
a soul's journey to Heaven (via Purgatory/Hell). The newly dead
spirits could barely stand to touch the vibrant reality of Heaven, but
if they persevered and moved onwards, the journey became easier and
easier. That's how I remember it, anyways...
r***@gmail.com
2006-03-30 02:30:50 UTC
Permalink
There are others conclusions you can come to:

1) Human civilization eventually destroys itself and we never develop
the technology to time travel, or we just end up barking up the wrong
tree scientifically and never discover how to do it. This doesn't
preclude other possible civilisations from doing it though.

2) Time travel is possible, but only in rare, controlled, and/or
specialized circtumstances that make it impractical for large amounts
of matter.

The smart money is on option 2), however there are similar arguments
brandished for reasons why we haven't made formal contact with
extraterrestrial civilisations which seem more like buck-passing (eg
we live in the equivalent of the galactic boondocks, we are not every
insteresting, or we are being watched but not interfered with until we
reach a some arbitrary level of social maturity).

It's interesting that you mention Lewis' idea on time travel. It's the
opposite of the classic Bradbury theory outlined in _A Sound of
Thunder_ (the short story, not the gawdawful film). Basically, the
amplification of minute chaotic events such as your body displacing air
molecules that weren't originally displaced means that the future is
forever altered the minute you travel back in time.
From the available evidence it seems Doctor Who is the middle ground
between Lewis and Bradbury. I've seen a number of explanations for how
time works in Doctor Who and the best one is the River theory -- in
which the flow of time is mutable, but in the long run small
alterations (such as time travellers walking around and breathing)
don't add up to much. The flow of the huge river (ie established
history) is going to resist someone trying to divert it and in the end
the river ends up on the same path (or such a similar path that it's
indistinguishable from the original one). This is probably the reason
why the Time Lords tolerated the Doctor travelling about -- his
meddlings in the overall scheme of things don't amount to much (eg help
overthrow one dictatorship and another will take it's place and fulfull
the effect the original did in the long term future). Also it seems
that very nature of the TARDIS or the Time Lords technology precludes
some forms of alteration. The Doctor's comment about the Time Lords
fixing such anomalies in _Father's Day_ makes me wonder if some of the
more potentially disasterous alterations in the series were secretly
fixed after the fact..

There are places where the river is narrower, and more vulnerable. We
get a hint of this in _Genesis of the Daleks_ and to a lesser extent in
_The King's Demons_. It's also the likely reason that the Doctor tells
Barbara in _The Aztecs_ that she cannot rewrite history. The Doctor
seems reasonably happy to change things at certain points in the
future, but I wonder if there is a taboo for altering things at points
so far upstream in the past that every event is crucial to the web of
time.

We have indirect evidence from the old series of how certain
alterations can be quite dramatic. From _Genesis of the Daleks_ onward
it appears that the history of the Daleks (and by extension the entire
Universe) has been altered in a mild way. The Daleks now acknowledge
their creator, and as a whole are weaker and factionalized. Taken to
it's logical conclusion the Daleks in that new timeline would
eventually develop time travel and discover that their past had been
altered -- as an aside its also a damn good provoaction for the
mysterious time war alluded to in the new series. Time Lords and
Daleks playing cat and mouse through time trying to alter each others
histories -- with everyone else in the Universe the losers.
The Doctor
2006-03-30 13:25:45 UTC
Permalink
Imagine the Jagaroth in charge of the Universe.

If Scaroth survives, that could happen.
--
Member - Liberal International
This is ***@nl2k.ab.ca Ici ***@nl2k.ab.ca
God Queen and country! Beware Anti-Christ rising!
Canada's New CONservatives - Same old Tory.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Chancellor_Goth
2006-03-30 21:23:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Doctor
Imagine the Jagaroth in charge of the Universe.
If Scaroth survives, that could happen.
Well that did happen - 400 million years ago. But they were overthrown and
destroyed in a war.

How long do individual Jagaroth survive?
--
Frank
"Incidentally, I'm a bit alarmed by your assumptions that thinking and
laughing are mutually exclusive activities. Best wishes, Douglas Adams"
Cyvros
2006-03-31 15:16:52 UTC
Permalink
Okay, I'll present my theory of parallel universes and coincidences.
I'm studying Physics and Space Science at University now, so I have a
bit of backing behind me.

Basically, every single action can be boiled down to yes and no or
black and white or, as I like to put it, 0 and 1. You may think things
are done in degrees, but if you look close enough, you'll realise that
everything comes down to a yes/no question. So this leads to a
'decision branch', as one might call it - a branch which expands each
time there is a yes or a no. Each part of the branch is not necessarily
unique, though.

So one new universe is created from a yes answer and another from the
no answer. And there is another decision in the Yes universe which
leads to the creation of two new universes: a Yes universe and a No
universe. This continues until a finite number of universes, all of
which cover every single possibility, is created. Now, it's not a
finite number in my theory because, as those who've done Maths know,
infinity is not a number and thus there cannot be an infinite number of
universes, merely the largest finite number.

And so there is one universe exactly like this bar one difference - a
small blade of grass that exists in this universe never grows in that
other universe. And in another universe, that small blade of grass
affects the whole of humanity. Since all possiblities are covered, of
course, the lack of that blade of grass causes the end of the Universe
in another universe.

So this theory, although not covering time travel as such, rules out
the possibility of there being any 'creator' - all possibilities are
covered. As an atheist, this suits me fine, of course.

There are parts of my theory I'm still not entirely sure on, though. I
think, but I'm not sure on this, that 50% of universes have that blade
of grass and the other 50% doesn't. Likewise, a 'different' half of all
universes have this message board in existance whilst the other half
doesn't. But there exists a unique 'code' or combination of
possibilities which narrows the possibilities down to, for instance,
this one, with its rec.arts.drwho.moderated and blade of grass.

I'm sure this theory is mildly scientific.

Cyv.
j***@gmail.com
2006-04-01 06:31:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cyvros
Okay, I'll present my theory of parallel universes and coincidences.
I'm studying Physics and Space Science at University now, so I have a
bit of backing behind me.
Why do we need seperate universes? The one we live in now appears to be
infinite (or so I'm told).

If we combine the theory of an infinite universe with Murphy's Law
(anything that can happen WILL happen) we can safely conclude that at
this moment there are an infinite number of Earths in the universe. One
must be exactly identical to the one I am walking on now...identical
right down to the smallest microscopic detail, except that I have one
less hair on my head. In another Earth, everything is identical except
that I am wearing one blue sock and one black one. Etc.

There must also exist a seperate Earth for each moment of time right
back to the beginning of time. If one could simply travel between these
simultaneously existing Earths, his journey could very well SEEM to be
time travel. This also means that any alterations that he makes during
his visit will only effect the timeline of that particular Earth...when
he returns home, everything will be unchanged, because he hasn't really
visited the past on his own home world.

Jeffrey Alsip
Chancellor_Goth
2006-04-02 15:27:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@gmail.com
If we combine the theory of an infinite universe with Murphy's Law
(anything that can happen WILL happen) we can safely conclude that at
this moment there are an infinite number of Earths in the universe. One
must be exactly identical to the one I am walking on now...identical
right down to the smallest microscopic detail, except that I have one
less hair on my head. In another Earth, everything is identical except
that I am wearing one blue sock and one black one. Etc.
Totally unscientific.

There's no support for this dotty theory at all. That isn't what parallel
universes are about, in physics.
--
Frank
"Incidentally, I'm a bit alarmed by your assumptions that thinking and
laughing are mutually exclusive activities. Best wishes, Douglas Adams"
Neil Sullivan
2006-04-03 01:35:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Cyvros
Okay, I'll present my theory of parallel universes and coincidences.
I'm studying Physics and Space Science at University now, so I have a
bit of backing behind me.
Why do we need seperate universes? The one we live in now appears to be
infinite (or so I'm told).
I might be behind on my astrophysics, but I thought the current theory was
for a finite Universe?
Brax
2006-04-12 12:01:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Neil Sullivan
I might be behind on my astrophysics, but I thought the current theory was
for a finite Universe?
the universe is infinite in that it has no bounds, but finite in that
there's only so much matter out there. I think.

Brax
MHW
2006-04-12 13:12:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brax
the universe is infinite in that it has no bounds, but finite in that
there's only so much matter out there. I think.
It remains an open question:
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101shape.html.

--
MHW
Cyvros
2006-04-13 13:07:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brax
the universe is infinite in that it has no bounds, but finite in that
there's only so much matter out there. I think.
Not correct. The current estimate (note *estimate*) is something along
the lines of 12-16 billion light years, from memory, but MHW is correct
- it's an open question and nobody can really agree on an answer. We
can only observe a sphere with an approximate radius of 7 billion light
years around us from Earth.

Cyv.
Neil Sullivan
2006-04-13 13:49:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brax
Post by Neil Sullivan
I might be behind on my astrophysics, but I thought the current theory was
for a finite Universe?
the universe is infinite in that it has no bounds, but finite in that
there's only so much matter out there. I think.
This may be a pedantic point, but not having bounds doesn't make it
infinite. We can travel around the World as much as we want without falling
off the edge, but that doesn't make the World's surface area infinite.
MHW
2006-04-13 16:24:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Neil Sullivan
This may be a pedantic point, but not having bounds doesn't make it
infinite.
I suspect Brax was thinking in terms of the Euclidean norm on R^3, in which
case boundedness does imply finite volume (Lebesgue measure) -- provided
we're dealing with a measurable set.
Post by Neil Sullivan
We can travel around the World as much as we want without falling
off the edge, but that doesn't make the World's surface area infinite.
We appear to have wandered into the realms of topology. Yes, a sphere
doesn't have any boundary components, but I doubt that's what was being
considered here.

--
MHW

Cyvros
2006-04-05 11:30:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@gmail.com
Why do we need seperate universes? The one we live in now appears to be
infinite (or so I'm told).
What do you mean appears to be infinite? Infinite in size? Because
that's wrong. The Universe has a finite size. And how can anything
*truly* be infinite when infinity is not a proper number as such?
Post by j***@gmail.com
I might be behind on my astrophysics, but I thought the current theory was
for a finite Universe?
That's how I've been taught and how I've always read it.
Post by j***@gmail.com
Makes a lot of sense to me. You could apply probabilities to each of those
decisions though. If there is a 90% chance of that blade of grass growing,
then there are still only two parallel universes resulting from that
decision, but they have relative probabilities.
It would then no longer follow that half of all universes have this message
board in existance whilst the other half doesn't. Hmm, actually maybe it
would, but it would be more meaningful to add together the probabilities of
all those with the messageboard and say 30% of all probabilities have it and
70 % don't, or whatever.
As I see it, the thing is that since everything is reduced to a set of
50-50s (yes/no), that blade of grass would only exist in some form in
half of all universes. I'm sorry to say it, Neil, but I don't really
follow you from there.

Cyv.
Neil Sullivan
2006-04-03 01:36:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cyvros
There are parts of my theory I'm still not entirely sure on, though. I
think, but I'm not sure on this, that 50% of universes have that blade
of grass and the other 50% doesn't. Likewise, a 'different' half of all
universes have this message board in existance whilst the other half
doesn't. But there exists a unique 'code' or combination of
possibilities which narrows the possibilities down to, for instance,
this one, with its rec.arts.drwho.moderated and blade of grass.
I'm sure this theory is mildly scientific.
Makes a lot of sense to me. You could apply probabilities to each of those
decisions though. If there is a 90% chance of that blade of grass growing,
then there are still only two parallel universes resulting from that
decision, but they have relative probabilities.

It would then no longer follow that half of all universes have this message
board in existance whilst the other half doesn't. Hmm, actually maybe it
would, but it would be more meaningful to add together the probabilities of
all those with the messageboard and say 30% of all probabilities have it and
70 % don't, or whatever.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...