Time travel conundrum and the end of mankind!

johnty56

Suitably dramatic title:)

Sitting in traffic today, I started wondering and it occurred to me that humans must never invent time travel, because if they did, some doofus from the future would have slipped up by now and given the game away.

Which further led me to think, that if humans never invent time travel, then it is probable that the human race becomes extinct in the future, probably by destruction, rather than over time- as it is likely that with future advances in technology and understanding of the nature of time, that eventually we would figure it out- if we were still around!

This also suggest that our extinction happens before we manage to colonise other planets- as branches of humanity would likely discover time travel on other planets even if Earth/ humanity on Earth was destroyed?

So what does After Hours think?

KilOit

Garda can now check for drugs as well as alcohol when driving

The Backwards Man

How long was the traffic jam?

johnty56

The Backwards Man wrote: »

How long was the traffic jam?

Long enough to ponder, but not too ponderous:)

Alf Stewart.

Let me help you with your toke session op.....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aRZMJm18qb0

Eugene Norman

The fact there weren't many bets on leicester this season proves time travel a myth.

stoplooklisten

if someone from the future came back e wouldn't believe them.
David Bowie wrote songs and danced

DivingDuck

If you had the possibility to travel to any place/point in all of space and time, would you really bother with this backwater planet during the few decades where people didn't know time travel was a thing, but were still likely to notice any time travellers?

imitation

Time travel works, duh, problem is you forget everything because it hasn't happened yet !

sunbeam

johnty56 wrote: »

Suitably dramatic title:)

Sitting in traffic today, I started wondering and it occurred to me that humans must never invent time travel, because if they did, some doofus from the future would have slipped up by now and given the game away.

You've never heard of John Titor?

Eugene Norman

DivingDuck wrote: »

If you had the possibility to travel to any place/point in all of space and time, would you really bother with this backwater planet during the few decades where people didn't know time travel was a thing, but were still likely to notice any time travellers?

Presumably the time travellers are from the planet?

DivingDuck

Eugene Norman wrote: »

Presumably the time travellers are from the planet?

If you have the ability to time travel, you have the ability to travel to other planets at different points in time for them, a la Dr Who.

Just because The Doctor has a (budget-based) fetish for modern day Earth doesn't mean any sensible time traveller would feel the same. Think of it this way: would you rather re-visit the movie at the cinema in the 90s or go to real-life Juarassic Park?

I'm grateful to have been born in the time period I was since I believe life is easier for most people now than at all previous points in history (longer life span etc.), but I really doubt it's more interesting than anything that has come before or what will follow.

In the grand scheme of things, it's probably one of those boring filler episodes you skip over when you're re-watching the box set, basically.

kneemos

Could you time travel to the future if it hasn't happened yet?

hardCopy

The Backwards Man wrote: »

How long was the traffic jam?

About 50 years

Billy86

I think the movie 12 Monkeys did a great job I think of showing what would happen to a time traveler if they arrived on earth in recent times. Not the science behind the time travel etc, but how society would treat them... "oh you're from the future? And you've come to save the world [or whatever]? Come here a moment, I've a few friends in white coats who would like a quick chat. Try on these cuffs please."

Likewise were that Jesus lad around today, he would not be getting statues built of him and instead would be either locked up in a nut house, or preaching the word of God outside a shopping centre somewhere.

The_Valeyard

johnty56 wrote: »

Suitably dramatic title:)

Sitting in traffic today, I started wondering and it occurred to me that humans must never invent time travel, because if they did, some doofus from the future would have slipped up by now and given the game away.

Which further led me to think, that if humans never invent time travel, then it is probable that the human race becomes extinct in the future, probably by destruction, rather than over time- as it is likely that with future advances in technology and understanding of the nature of time, that eventually we would figure it out- if we were still around!

This also suggest that our extinction happens before we manage to colonise other planets- as branches of humanity would likely discover time travel on other planets even if Earth/ humanity on Earth was destroyed?

So what does After Hours think?

You may travel forward in time but not backwards due to the paradoxes

Eugene Norman

DivingDuck wrote: »

If you have the ability to time travel, you have the ability to travel to other planets at different points in time for them, a la Dr Who.

No you don't.

Just because The Doctor has a (budget-based) fetish for modern day Earth doesn't mean any sensible time traveller would feel the same. Think of it this way: would you rather re-visit the movie at the cinema in the 90s or go to real-life Juarassic Park?

I'm grateful to have been born in the time period I was since I believe life is easier for most people now than at all previous points in history (longer life span etc.), but I really doubt it's more interesting than anything that has come before or what will follow.

In the grand scheme of things, it's probably one of those boring filler episodes you skip over when you're re-watching the box set, basically.

It's a pretty interesting time i would say. Most of the 20th C was too. Parts of the 19th. 12th, not so much.

bucketybuck

Eugene Norman wrote: »

The fact there weren't many bets on leicester this season proves time travel a myth.

The fact there were any bets on Leicester this season proves time travel is not a myth.

Eugene Norman

bucketybuck wrote: »

The fact there were any bets on Leicester this season proves time travel is not a myth.

So we know who the time travelers are then?

kneemos

The_Valeyard wrote: »

You may travel forward in time but not backwards due to the paradoxes

Spock disproved that theory.

seamus

I'm afraid it proves nada. Even if some idiot were to slip up, the existence of time travel means that you have infinite opportunities to correct the issue.

Many theories also support the assertion that you cannot go back to a time before the invention or at least the discovery of time travel, because you need some form of anchor point at each end. That is, someone would need to create a "receiver" in 2016 that a "transmitter" in 2116 could communicate with.

I do believe that there's some early discussion about this - setting up some kind of receiver to listen for waves or particles that are not bound by the constraints of space time and waiting to "hear" someone transmit from the future.

The issue there is that people in the future have no way of knowing that their transmission has been received unless we also have a transmitter in the past. And while a receiver isn't a million miles from our current technology, a transmitter is. How would we know that the "frequency" of our receiver wasn't forgotten by the time the transmitter was invented. Or that our receiver won't work, e.g. it needs to be "AM" instead of "FM".

Dr Crayfish

Berlinghoff Rasumssen did it but the other way around. Came from the past to the future claiming to be from the future, in order to steal 26th century technology. Ledge.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

johnty56 wrote: »

Suitably dramatic title:)

Sitting in traffic today, I started wondering and it occurred to me that humans must never invent time travel, because if they did, some doofus from the future would have slipped up by now and given the game away.

Which further led me to think, that if humans never invent time travel, then it is probable that the human race becomes extinct in the future, probably by destruction, rather than over time- as it is likely that with future advances in technology and understanding of the nature of time, that eventually we would figure it out- if we were still around!

This also suggest that our extinction happens before we manage to colonise other planets- as branches of humanity would likely discover time travel on other planets even if Earth/ humanity on Earth was destroyed?

So what does After Hours think?

How do you know they're not here already?

In the future, we may have learnt how to seperate the mind form the body and just sent back the consciousness.

namloc1980

Travelling into the future is not only possible it actually happens. Astronauts on the International Space Station return to Earth slightly younger than if they had stayed on earth. Now the effect is miniscule but measurable. It's called time dilation. The effect becomes more pronounced the faster you go relative to everyone on earth.

Poor Uncle Tom

Eugene Norman wrote: »

The fact there weren't many bets on leicester this season proves time travel a myth.

The fact there were any proves that time travel exists.

Anyway, why would you need money if you can travel anywhere, anytime you like? What good would a fistfull of euros from 2016 be at Woodstock in 1969?

Eugene Norman

Poor Uncle Tom wrote: »

The fact there were any proves that time travel exists.

Anyway, why would you need money if you can travel anywhere, anytime you like? What good would a fistfull of euros from 2016 be at Woodstock in 1969?

It would be useful, if invested, in 2116.

Eugene Norman

namloc1980 wrote: »

Travelling into the future is not only possible it actually happens. Astronauts on the International Space Station return to Earth slightly younger than if they had stayed on earth. Now the effect is miniscule but measurable. It's called time dilation. The effect becomes more pronounced the faster you go relative to everyone on earth.

I'm travelling forward too at the rate of a day a day.

HigginsJ

If you are time travelling you can only travel in time not the location. So if you time travelled from Ireland 2216 you would end up in Ireland 2016.

Now you could always hop on a flight & travel to America etc. when you arrived back in time but there would be all sorts of passport issues so you are pretty much stuck in the place you are now, just not in time.

Also you have to assume time travel would be highly scrutinised & controlled so pretty much everyone on Boards would not be part of it.

johnty56

seamus wrote: »

I'm afraid it proves nada. Even if some idiot were to slip up, the existence of time travel means that you have infinite opportunities to correct the issue.

Many theories also support the assertion that you cannot go back to a time before the invention or at least the discovery of time travel, because you need some form of anchor point at each end. That is, someone would need to create a "receiver" in 2016 that a "transmitter" in 2116 could communicate with.

I do believe that there's some early discussion about this - setting up some kind of receiver to listen for waves or particles that are not bound by the constraints of space time and waiting to "hear" someone transmit from the future.

The issue there is that people in the future have no way of knowing that their transmission has been received unless we also have a transmitter in the past. And while a receiver isn't a million miles from our current technology, a transmitter is. How would we know that the "frequency" of our receiver wasn't forgotten by the time the transmitter was invented. Or that our receiver won't work, e.g. it needs to be "AM" instead of "FM".

Does that not involve a perception of time as something can be viewed or heard, rather than a measure of distance which can be 'travelled'?

SafeSurfer

johnty56 wrote: »

Does that not involve a perception of time as something can be viewed or heard, rather than a measure of distance which can be 'travelled'?

Like the chronovisor? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronovisor

bear1

Isn't there a belief that if you flew around the circumference of the earth at a faster speed than the earth turns then you would jump 24 hours into the future? Something like that or was it that earth will have moved one day forward but for you it would be one hour.

Sh1tbag OToole

DivingDuck wrote: »

If you had the possibility to travel to any place/point in all of space and time, would you really bother with this backwater planet during the few decades where people didn't know time travel was a thing, but were still likely to notice any time travellers?

I would travel to 1940's or 1950's Ireland if I could and live out the rest of my days.

bear1

Sh1tbag OToole wrote: »

I would travel to 1940's or 1950's Ireland if I could and live out the rest of my days.

In a priest filled, poor ****hole? Nah you're grand.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

bear1 wrote: »

In a priest filled, poor ****hole? Nah you're grand.

Maybe he's a priest?

The_Valeyard

kneemos wrote: »

Spock disproved that theory.

unless they hadn't travelled back in time but went forward in time so far they went full circle and stopped in the 1960s, or got stuck in the multiverse earth and appeared at a lesser developed timeline.

MarkAnthony

A tachyon leaves a bar...
The bartender says, "We don't serve your kind here."
A tachyon walks into a bar.

A joke that never gets... new.

bear1

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Maybe he's a priest?

He'll fit in brilliantly then

Tom1991

KilOit wrote: »

Garda can now check for drugs as well as alcohol when driving

Best reply I've ever seen.
Fell off me seat on the bus reading that.bravo

CiboC

HigginsJ wrote: »

If you are time travelling you can only travel in time not the location. So if you time travelled from Ireland 2216 you would end up in Ireland 2016.

Considering that the Earth rotates around the sun and our entire solar system rotates around the centre of the galaxy, if you jumped 100 years into the past would you not end up (briefly) gasping for breath in the vacuum of space?

animaal

HigginsJ wrote: »

If you are time travelling you can only travel in time not the location. So if you time travelled from Ireland 2216 you would end up in Ireland 2016.

I wonder...?

If I travelled back in time, presumably my location wouldn't change. But where "Ireland" is now isn't where it was an hour ago. The earth rotates. It also travels around the sun. The sun is travelling around our galaxy. The galaxies are all moving away from each other. So if I went back 100 years in time, but stauyed where I am now, I'd most likely end up in space somewhere!

Of course, it's all relative, so if we assume my location is static and the rest of the universe is actually moving around me, then I could travel back in time to exactly where I am now.

bear1

animaal wrote: »

I wonder...?

If I travelled back in time, presumably my location wouldn't change. But where "Ireland" is now isn't where it was an hour ago. The earth rotates. It also travels around the sun. The sun is travelling around our galaxy. The galaxies are all moving away from each other. So if I went back 100 years in time, but stauyed where I am now, I'd most likely end up in space somewhere!

Of course, it's all relative, so if we assume my location is static and the rest of the universe is actually moving around me, then I could travel back in time to exactly where I am now.

I think Back to the Future did it brilliantly, it didn't exaggerate and say you'd end up in some other place but you would remain exactly where you are/were.
So as the poster had said, if you went 50 years into the future while standing in a field you would be transported to that spot in the future.
The one thing I wonder is, if I do go in time and I'm standing freely when it happens what happens if when I get to the future that spot no longer exists?

ginger_hammer

The time travel example explained in Stephen Hawkins 'Universe in a Nutshell' example is this:

Take 2 twins on earth, Twin A goes into a rocket and blasts into near speed of light directly away from the planet. Twin B remains on Earth. Twin A travels for say 1 year, stops, and turns around back at the same speed to Earth. When Twin A returns, Twin B in long dead from old age, as time is relative to the observer/person - as speed increases time slows relatively. So you can travel forwards in time. Same as ISS.

It had pictures in that book and thats the only way I could understand it

MarkAnthony

ginger_hammer wrote: »

The time travel example explained in Stephen Hawkins 'Universe in a Nutshell' example is this:

Take 2 twins on earth, Twin A goes into a rocket and blasts into near speed of light directly away from the planet. Twin B remains on Earth. Twin A travels for say 1 year, stops, and turns around back at the same speed to Earth. When Twin A returns, Twin B in long dead from old age, as time is relative to the observer/person - as speed increases time slows relatively. So you can travel forwards in time. Same as ISS.

It had pictures in that book and thats the only way I could understand it

That's not time travel but relativity.

Time passes more slowly the faster you go which is why I always boot it on the M50.