If You Could Go Back In Time, Would You?

[Pale Rider]

You always hear people say, "man if I could just go back in time." I've contemplated that idea many times, and as I get older, the answer to it is increasingly no. A couple years ago when I went down to visit my parents in Phoenix, I drove past my old apartment where I lived while going to school. It kind of creeped me out, because I'd moved forward, and the place wasn't the same. People and places had gone and changed, and I no longer belonged there.

I don't think there's any part of my life I'd want to go back and live over. Not with full knowledge of what my future life was and that I was back in time. I'd feel as though I didn't belong there either.

I think growing old is an interesting journey, and the older I get and closer to death, I'm curious about what's on the other side. Many of my beloved have passed on, including my brother. I'm going to be old and tired. I think when the time comes, I'll welcome death with a smile. Going back in time would seem like a nightmare.

I think the idea of living forever scares me more than dying.

[Yurt]

I would like to go back and buy shares of microsoft in the early 80's.....

There's a few things I would change, like this one time at band camp

[Immanuel]

Can I come back to the current time or am I stuck in the past?

Immie

[Classact]

I would like to go back and buy shares of microsoft in the early 80's.....

There's a few things I would change, like this one time at band camp

Lottery tickets! To not laugh when someone said invest in plastics...

[JohnDoe]

Yes, there are many things that I would change....if I had the knowledge and experience that I have today, back then....

and just pray like crazy that in the end, I still would have met Matt and still would have married him....

[Yurt]

Lottery tickets! To not laugh when someone said invest in plastics...

Ha. Loves those.

Time machine good for:

Remote shopping, while entirely feasible, will flop - because women like to get out of the house, like to handle merchandise, like to be able to change their minds.»
TIME, 1966, in one sentence writing off e-commerce long before anyone had ever heard of it.


There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home.»
Ken Olson, president, chairman and founder of Digital Equipment Corp. (DEC), maker of big business mainframe computers, arguing against the PC in 1977.


I think this guy USED a time machine:

If I had thought about it, I wouldn’t have done the experiment. The literature was full of examples that said ‘you can’t do this’.»
Spencer Silver on the work that led to the unique adhesives for 3-M “Post-It” Notepads.


:coffee:

[Hagbard Celine]

I'd go back and invest in some stock or something and put a hold on the account until the year and day I went back in time. That way, when I returned, my life would be exactly the same, except now I'd be super rich. I would've lived my entire life up until that point having this money accumulating interest and value and not knowing about it but then after I got back from the past, I'd get a letter in the mail saying that the account has reached its mature date and I can now take it over.

[hjmick]

I'd go back, but only if I could carry with me the knowledge I have obtained over these last 42 years. And if I can take my wife with me. And maybe one of my kids.

[Abbey Marie]

I though you meant back in history. I've always wanted to do that. Particularly to the time of Christ, and also the Elizabethan period in England. However, I want to be able to come back to the future!

[PostmodernProphet]

.....travelled back in time, bought Microsoft....caught the flu and penicillin wasn't available.....died.....hadn't had kids yet, so money went to parents.....tax law changes hadn't been put in place yet so government took most of it in death taxes when parents died......decided it wasn't worth it, so didn't go back......

[manu1959]

i would .... but not to alter anything in my life....i would love to visit various periods of history.....

[Pale Rider]

Can I come back to the current time or am I stuck in the past?

Immie

Excelent question, and I should have pointed that out.

I meant, would you go back in time if you had to STAY there? No coming back.

Sure If I could pop back and forth, that would be totally different. But I mean go back and have to live everything over... alone, and only the period of time within your own life.

[Trigg]

Excelent question, and I should have pointed that out.

I meant, would you go back in time if you had to STAY there? No coming back.

Sure If I could pop back and forth, that would be totally different. But I mean go back and have to live everything over... alone, and only the period of time within your own life.

NO not with those limitations.

1. Didn't like highschool.

1. Dirt poor after I got married, that would be no fun to do over. It took me years before I'd make chili or hamberger helper again.

[typomaniac]

I think growing old is an interesting journey, and the older I get and closer to death, I'm curious about what's on the other side. Many of my beloved have passed on, including my brother. I'm going to be old and tired. I think when the time comes, I'll welcome death with a smile. Going back in time would seem like a nightmare.

I think the idea of living forever scares me more than dying.

That's one area where you and I are all the way on the opposite ends of the spectrum. Assuming that I would never decay physically, I would LOVE to live for hundreds or even thousands of years.

Think of all the history you'd learn, and all the sense of perspective you'd develop. Sure, you'd be sad to lose your friends as they grew old and died, but you'd always be making new friends, especially those who are interested in the past.

[5stringJeff]

I'd go back in time, visit me at about age 10, and make sure I told myself to not do a few stupid things I've done. Plus, I'd buy Apple/Microsoft/Google stocks, and win a few lotteries.

[avatar4321]

Time travel. it's a cornicopia of disturbing concepts.

[dan]

Putting aside all the "I'd invest in ____" comments, which I don't think was what Pale was getting at anyway, no, I wouldn't go back. I feel like I've been constantly evolving as a person over my lifetime, so I don't see any need to go back to a past time to relive the old days or anything like that.

Although, I would like to go back to high school with the knowledge that all the "cool" guys who used to pick on me would be.... still living in the same podunk town six years later, and that all the girls who wouldn't give me the time of day are either pregnant or cokeheads now!

[gabosaurus]

If I could turn back time, I would tell Cher to shut up. :)

[Pale Rider]

That's one area where you and I are all the way on the opposite ends of the spectrum. Assuming that I would never decay physically, I would LOVE to live for hundreds or even thousands of years.

Think of all the history you'd learn, and all the sense of perspective you'd develop. Sure, you'd be sad to lose your friends as they grew old and died, but you'd always be making new friends, especially those who are interested in the past.

Your prospective on that may change when you get older, and then maybe not. Either way, at 52, I believe I've seen FAR better days, and FAR worse ahead. I totally believe that if man is still here a thousand years from now, the world in which those live in won't be anything I'd ever want to.

[Pale Rider]

I'd go back in time, visit me at about age 10, and make sure I told myself to not do a few stupid things I've done. Plus, I'd buy Apple/Microsoft/Google stocks, and win a few lotteries.

But what if the only way you could back in time was to be yourself again, at that age in time, and there was no coming back to present day? Would you still want to go?

[Pale Rider]

If I could turn back time, I would tell Cher to shut up. :)

:lmao: - - - :lol:

[gabosaurus]

I wouldn't mind living in the 60's. It seemed to be a simpler time.

[Pale Rider]

I wouldn't mind living in the 60's. It seemed to be a simpler time.

Sure was. I rarely watched TV. I didn't have a cell phone or a computer. I didn't even have a radio. I entertained myself playing outside. I lived on a farm in the sixties. Best times of my childhood. I absolutely loved it. I wept when we moved off the farm, even though it was into a large, brand new home.

[typomaniac]

Your prospective on that may change when you get older, and then maybe not. Either way, at 52, I believe I've seen FAR better days, and FAR worse ahead. I totally believe that if man is still here a thousand years from now, the world in which those live in won't be anything I'd ever want to.

Parts of the upcoming hundred years are going to get extremely ugly: I totally agree with you there. The most likely cause is that the US will finally have to face up to and solve the problems that it's been ignoring since the early 1900s. But I have confidence that those problems will be solved. It's amazing what we normally lazy, apathetic, hedonistic Americans can accomplish when there's a real crisis and failure is not an option.

As for a thousand years from now, it's anybody's guess.

[glockmail]

Parts of the upcoming hundred years are going to get extremely ugly: I totally agree with you there. The most likely cause is that the US will finally have to face up to and solve the problems that it's been ignoring since the early 1900s. But I have confidence that those problems will be solved. It's amazing what we normally lazy, apathetic, hedonistic Americans can accomplish when there's a real crisis and failure is not an option.

As for a thousand years from now, it's anybody's guess.

You've got to love this liberal, doom and gloom view of the world.

As for pales's question, my answer would be "no". But if I could travel to the future, then I'd reconsider.

[Pale Rider]

You've got to love this liberal, doom and gloom view of the world.

As for pales's question, my answer would be "no". But if I could travel to the future, then I'd reconsider.

And that opens a whole 'nother can a worms glock. As far as time travel goes, most would say you can travel to past because it's already happened, but can't travel to the future because it hasn't happened yet.

(You didn't vote glock.)

[glockmail]

And that opens a whole 'nother can a worms glock. As far as time travel goes, most would say you can travel to past because it's already happened, but can't travel to the future because it hasn't happened yet.

(You didn't vote glock.)

Then what do people in the future do? :poke:

[typomaniac]

As far as time travel goes, most would say you can travel to past because it's already happened, but can't travel to the future because it hasn't happened yet.

Actually, it's not hard to figure out how to "travel" into the future: when you get close to the speed of light, your rate of aging slows down. So if you travel long enough, you can go as far into the future as you want without realizing that any time has passed until you slow down again.

On the other hand, I've never heard of a way to travel into the past. You get into all kinds of paradox problems.

[Hagbard Celine]

I would go back and bang some cave-chicks! :dance:
http://www.merchantivory.com/images/savages.jpg

[typomaniac]

I would go back and bang some cave-chicks! :dance:
http://www.merchantivory.com/images/savages.jpg

I hope you realize that there's no way any real cave-chicks looked THAT good! :poke:

[Pale Rider]

Then what do people in the future do? :poke:

Don't know. It hasn't happened yet.

[Pale Rider]

Actually, it's not hard to figure out how to "travel" into the future: when you get close to the speed of light, your rate of aging slows down. So if you travel long enough, you can go as far into the future as you want without realizing that any time has passed until you slow down again.

On the other hand, I've never heard of a way to travel into the past. You get into all kinds of paradox problems.

I've heard that. It's explained as if you imagined a clock ticking indicated as a line going up and down from one second to the next, it would be a straight line if you weren't moving. Now if you were to move a distance from point A to point B, the up and down second movement would look like a zig zag line. As you increase speed, the zig zag line of time would get ever flatter, until it would appear you depart point A and arrive at point B instantaneously. The theory about what happens if you go even faster gets sketchy from there. The quantum question is, would you be at point B "before" you left point A?

[typomaniac]

I've heard that. It's explained as if you imagined a clock ticking indicated as a line going up and down from one second to the next, it would be a straight line if you weren't moving. Now if were to move a distance from point A to point B, the up and down second movement would look like a zig zag line. As you increase speed, the zig zag line of time would get ever flatter, until it would appear you depart point A and arrive at point B instantaneously. The theory about what happens if you go even faster gets sketchy from there. The quantum question is, would you be at point B "before" you left point A?
Well, here's what little I remember from college physics.

The laws of physical behavior that govern things like speed, mass, time, etc., are not perfectly accurate unless you (the observer/measurer/scientist) are in the same frame of reference as whatever you're observing or measuring. Simple example: there's a tennis ball sitting stationary on a table in one corner of a large room. I'm standing on the floor nearby, but a few feet away, you're bouncing up and down on a trampoline. The ball is going to appear to have a different velocity "relative" to you than it does to me. (Thus, the name "relativity.")

It turns out, as confirmed by measuring subatomic particles, that when an object's frame of reference is moving at high speeds, time within that frame of reference begins to "dilate." So, to travel into earth's future, you'd have to be moving at a high speed relative to the planet. The closer you get to the speed of light, the more time dilates until - in your frame of reference - you're moving at the speed of light and no time is passing at all.

Obviously there are some practical considerations when it comes to actually doing this. The major one is that your mass starts to increase the closer you get to light speed, at which point it becomes infinite (theoretically). That's why a lot of people claim that it will never be possible to exceed the speed of light. That's why the speed of light is sometimes affectionately called the "Einstein wall." There's also another school of thought claiming that objects that hit or exceed light speed somehow become "irrelevant" to the universe until they slow down again. But even my head starts to hurt when I get into stuff like this. :)

[Pale Rider]

Well, here's what little I remember from college physics.

The laws of physical behavior that govern things like speed, mass, time, etc., are not perfectly accurate unless you (the observer/measurer/scientist) are in the same frame of reference as whatever you're observing or measuring. Simple example: there's a tennis ball sitting stationary on a table in one corner of a large room. I'm standing on the floor nearby, but a few feet away, you're bouncing up and down on a trampoline. The ball is going to appear to have a different velocity "relative" to you than it does to me. (Thus, the name "relativity.")

It turns out, as confirmed by measuring subatomic particles, that when an object's frame of reference is moving at high speeds, time within that frame of reference begins to "dilate." So, to travel into earth's future, you'd have to be moving at a high speed relative to the planet. The closer you get to the speed of light, the more time dilates until - in your frame of reference - you're moving at the speed of light and no time is passing at all.

Obviously there are some practical considerations when it comes to actually doing this. The major one is that your mass starts to increase the closer you get to light speed, at which point it becomes infinite (theoretically). That's why a lot of people claim that it will never be possible to exceed the speed of light. That's why the speed of light is sometimes affectionately called the "Einstein wall." There's also another school of thought claiming that objects that hit or exceed light speed somehow become "irrelevant" to the universe until they slow down again. But even my head starts to hurt when I get into stuff like this. :)

So, with all this new interest in ghosts and such, hauntings, paranormal, perhaps there's much we don't understand, or are even able to explain within the confines of the world as we see it.

Personally, I believe in ghosts. What they are or where they are in time, I have no idea. All I know is they can cross into our world in certain instances. I was sitting talking with one of my neighbors when I lived in this old hotel that had been remodeled into apartments, and recently an old man had passed away in one of the apartments that we all knew as "Mink." We were sitting there talking, and the decanter in a drip coffee maker he had sitting on top of his refrigerator came flying out from the heater base, hit the wall and tumbled to the floor. We both sat there in disbelief for a moment, and then recalled Mink passing away. We said, "OK Mink, knock it off, you're going to break something," and I swear we could hear that old man laugh. It fucking creeped me out. But where would a soul/spirit/ghost be in time, and can they travel through time being as they aren't of this world? It seems the known laws of physics don't apply to them. If time travel is possilbe, it's beyond our known laws of physics and reasoning.

[typomaniac]

So, with all this new interest in ghosts and such, hauntings, paranormal, perhaps there's much we don't understand, or are even able to explain within the confines of the world as we see it.

Well, there definitely is a lot that we don't understand. And a lot of things whose behavior we haven't figured out how to "model" scientifically. How ghosts fit into the picture, I (like everyone else) don't have a clue. I hope someone finds out one day, though.