Time travel to 1912


Aidan Bowe

Member
May 22, 2004
134
9
183
I've put a thread on before about time travel...don't mistake me for some weirdo sci-fi nut though! Just too much time on my hands! What I was thinking the other day was, that supposing you could go back to 1912 and relive the days before the maiden voyage around Southampton and then embark on the voyage itself would you do it? The trade off being that you would not be able to return to the 21 century....Ever! Would it still be so appealing living through those times and those ahead,WW1,the Depression,WW2...all the time with no "true identity" to who you were.Then of course comes the complex matter of your true date of birth approaching in the 20C.What happens then? Told you...too much time on my hands! Bed beckons...Happy thinking!!!
 
Aug 15, 2005
908
5
183
35
Darwen, United Kingdom
Ah - the old time travel paradox-immi-jig.

I'd love to offer you my views on this, but my future self has just appeared from nowhere and told me that I have to leave right now, for my life is wasting away at this keyboard (He has terrible arthritis).

Just kidding. If there was no chance of returning, then I probably wouldn't bother.
I probably speak for everyone, there.

If not, then please correct me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Jul 9, 2000
58,666
881
563
Easley South Carolina
We've discussed this many times before in a number of variations. For my own money, it might be interesting to see history as it happened, but I don't think I'd much care for the tradeoff in terms of rampent diseases, uncontrolled pollution, economic upheavals, and two majors wars which left a nice sizedchunk of the world in ashes with millions of people dead because of a few deranged generalissimos.

Sinkings can be a lot of no-fun as well, especially if you get the dirty end of the stick in the rush for the boats.

The Good Old Days weren't so hot when you get down to it, so thanks but no thanks.

(Your results as always may vary.)
 
W

Wayne Keen

Guest
When I think of one way trips, I tend to think a little more personally, what would it be like to meet certain relatives when they were young, that sort of thing.

You know, if you postulate the ability to see things first hand through history - would the world be a more boring place? It certainly would blow the heck out of the wonderful discussions over timelines and orders and actions we have here....

Wayne
 

Richard Otter

Member
Mar 5, 2005
26
1
143
UK
Travel back in time and visit? definitely. Travel back in time and stay? No way!

I can’t remember who said it but the past is absolutely a foreign country, even a 100 hundred years ago or so would seem very alien to late 20th or early 21st century individuals.

Also, I think in the future we will discover that the laws of time prohibit going back in time (due to the danger of paradoxes etc).
 

Damon Hill

Member
Jun 13, 2004
142
6
183
I don't think I'd go back...I don't think it would be worth it,, having to go through all those future world events etc. Maybe in the future, the only way to 'sort of' time travel, will be if they discover a way to insert someones memory into your own head....that would be scary too! This might be a bit touchy, so apologies in advance, but just supposing that in 2095 there is a message board like this, discussing September 11 and people were talking about going back in time to that day to see what it was 'really' like...what would you say to them? I wonder what the passengers and crew of the Titanic, or anyone from the past for that matter, would say to us about wanting to go back?
 
May 1, 2004
294
1
183
A few questions.

Please, define or describe the 'danger of paradoxes'. My 'nanowrmo'(National Novel Writing Month) novel [for fun] was a time-travel piece. I have no idea if going back or forward in time could have at least theoretical possibility. [A friend of mine talked about 'wormholes' and Dr. Who - like transporters being possible] Now I would like to edit the thing, and I wonder how it could 'really' be done.

If one could go back with our post 1912 knowledge, he or she would probably at least try to alter history [warn about fascism or show how penicillin could be easily mass produced or tell Marilyn Monroe not to write presidential pillow talk in little red books]. Would that person be dismissed as a crank, or would he be listened to?

If we could relive the past, we probably would still have discussions and arguments. No two people see exactly the same thing the same way.

And what would happen when the time comes for your parents to conceive you, if you are already living? If you are not conceived at that time, you won't be born. Therefore you would not be alive to go back to the past. Then have you ever been alive?
 

Richard Otter

Member
Mar 5, 2005
26
1
143
UK
>> Please, define or describe the 'danger of paradoxes'. <<

Well let us say that you went back to a certain 1912 April night. You somehow managed to get onto a certain bridge. Hitting the helmsman over the head you turn the wheel hard over therefore missing anything in the way of the ship. So, Titanic didn’t hit the iceberg that night. But, this is complete nonsense because the Titanic did. So you cannot have gone back in time to make Titanic miss the iceberg because it never hit it in the first place. Paradox.

I think the natural laws of time would prevent this sort of thing. The past has already occurred so any time traveller to the past would not be able to change anything, it has already happened.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
W

Wayne Keen

Guest
Or, the alternative is that actions taken in the past that cause changes in the timeline result in a branch point in the multiverses.

This is related to the idea that for every decision, say to go to work or not, there are in fact two universes, in which you do and do not go to work.

Wayne
 
May 3, 2005
2,599
291
278
On a lighter vein, and I'll apologize to the more serious of those on this thread.

This is in reference to the British Sitcom ("Britcom" ?) "Good Night Sweetheart " in which Gary Sparrow goes back to ca.1940 to be with Phoebe, etc. What happens if he lives until he catches up with the time (ca. 1990) when he went back to ca. 1940 ? The series apparently ended when he made the decision to go back to ca. 1940 rather than return/stay in the ca. 1990 present, so the writers apparently didn't pursue this line.

Same thing applies to ... say if you went back to 1912 in the year 2006, managed to survive and live until at least 2006 ? What happens in 2006 ?

I'm not sure if this falls into the "paradox" theory...this scenario.:
The time machine wasn't perfected until, let us say, 2012. So no one has gone back yet. In 2012, they do go back, prevent the collision and the Titanic arrives in New York ahead of schedule. What happens (in the year 2012) to all the news articles that were in the 1912 newspapers,etc.?

I apologize in advance for this bit of nonsense, but maybe no worse than some of the others. :)
 
Jan 31, 2001
1,190
22
233
I'd enjoy the chance to go back and see the ship docked in Southampton, and to tour her of course. As far as taking the voyage, I'm afraid I'd have to decline. As appealing as the first four days of the crossing sound, I wouldn't want to be there when Sunday night rolled around. I'm assuming you meant go back in time without our hindsight, so the chances of my survival would be slim-to-none.

As for not being able to return to this century, I'd much rather stay in the time period I was born into. And about my birthday coming up in 1986 if I had travelled back, I suppose I wouldn't have to worry about what would happen. I'd likely not be around, given that I'd be 94 years old by that time.
 

Cara Ginter

Member
Oct 25, 2004
47
2
158
Oddly enough, I think I would choose the trade off, with the agreement that I could take 1 or 2 people with me.
To me, that era is preferable over ours, though I know I am in a very small group who would say that.
I don't know, but I'd much rather live in the early 1900s, then now. *shrugs* JMO.
Cara
 
Jul 9, 2000
58,666
881
563
Easley South Carolina
>>To me, that era is preferable over ours,<<

I don't know about that. The era certainly had it's high points but quite a few lows, some of which were a consequence of them not having technology we take for granted. Unchecked pollution, a lot of hard labour which was back breaking and not well compensated for, often widespread unsanitary conditions, rampent diseases, and so on. For a woman, it would also mean the real threat of dying in childbirth even in the most advanced nations with the best medical care available and for both parants, the heartbreak of knowing that some if not most of your children would not survive to adulthood.

Sounds like a raw deal to me...but that's just me.
 

Mark Webster

Member
Dec 24, 2005
37
1
158
ok heres a strange, and in a way rather creepy thought.
Lets just say that in 100 years time time travel is possible, that may mean that there are people already walking around us right now from the future...who are these people, good or bad.
What if the horrific events we all know of, i.e titanic, have been allowed to occour through future knowledge, maybe titanic would have been worse if time travel didnt occur, or maybe originally it was never meant to occur at all.
Can you see what I mean, the point is time travel cannot be allowed, im sure it wouldnt be allowed by any civilized government, the fact that people could return to the past and make mistakes which would alter in horrific disaster is to unthinkable and to unstable. but then again is it...maybe our suffering allows our descendants to be better off...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Jun 11, 2000
2,524
26
313
If time travel were possible in the future, there would be time-traveller tourists among us now, wouldn't there? But there aren't. And we know that because it would not really be possible to brief time-tourists to be 100% credible. So they'd become obvious.

And I don't think we are suffering. I think we are far better off than any previous generation. We might be nearer Armageddon due to a variety of effects, but we're still better off whilst we are here. Well, us in the West, at any rate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Jul 9, 2000
58,666
881
563
Easley South Carolina
>>So they'd become obvious. <<

I'm inclined to agree...only obvious in what way? I suspect that any such would more likely be mistaken for simple tourists then anything else. They would be out of place and probably seen as "easy marks" by some of the local swindlers, but that would be about it.

>>Can you see what I mean, the point is time travel cannot be allowed,<<

I'm not certain that a whole lot can be done about it. If it's possible, once somebody can identify the principles of physics which make it possible, the rest is just practical engineering to make it happen. The real trick would be to keep that technology out of the wrong hands.
 

Similar threads

Similar threads