KWH@MIT-MC@sri-unix (12/10/82)
"Time and Again" is by Jack Finney and is definitely worth reading-- While definiitely not "hard" science fiction, it is a pleasure to read-- Ken
ops@uci-icsa (08/04/85)
From: Doug Krause <ops@uci-icsa> What would a traveler from 1955 to 1985 be most surprised by? That's easy!! SIX formulas of Coca-Cola. ;-) Doug Krause dkrause@uci-icsb.arpa
KFL@MIT-MC.ARPA (10/16/85)
From: Keith F. Lynch <KFL@MIT-MC.ARPA>
Date: 10 Oct 85 17:24:00 PST
From: nep.pgelhausen@ames-vmsb.ARPA
Has anyone any thoughts on these three distinctions? Has anyone
seen a story where all three are brought into play? (Objective and
Subjective time are dealt with frequently, but Meta time seems to be
ignored (and rightly so...it would be a difficult concept....can you
now imagine traveling in Meta time??? You could travel to
(objective) 1800 by FIRST traveling back a month in Meta time, to
"before" the barrier was put up...))
Isaac Asimov's _End_of_Eternity_ deals with all three. An interesting
twist is that meta-time seems to be circular. This is never made explicit
in the story, but is the only way I could find to understand it. This
story also involves a similar time barrier.
Note that some concepts of time travel do not require this concept. For
instance Heinlein's time travel (in _Door_Into_Summer, _Time_Enough_For_Love_,
and _Number_of_the_Beast_) always seems to be in one timeline, i.e. whatever
happened happened. Time travel in Star Trek seems to work the same way, as
it does in H. G. Wells _The_Time_Machine_.
Also, there is the stack theory of time, as presented in James Hogan's
_Thrice_Upon_a_Time_, and in John Boyd's _Last_Starship_From_Earth_. In
this theory, changing the past simply obliterates whatever future comes
from the past having not been changed in that way at that time.
...KeithKFL@MIT-MC.ARPA (10/28/85)
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@MIT-MC.ARPA>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 85 13:54:23 cdt
From: Alan Wexelblat <wex@mcc.ARPA>
... It seems to me that time
travel *must* imply spatial (not necessarily space) travel because
if you move in time, then the spot you left from is going to be in a
different spatial location when you stop moving in time.
This would only be true if velocities were absolute. They aren't.
Can anyone think of SF in which time travel was explicitly separated
from spatial travel?
I can think of several. The authors obviously didn't undertand what
they were talking about. To say that the earth was 'there' in 1955 and
will be 'over there' in 2015 is meaningless.
For instance see Benford's _Timescape_, in which, when sending messages
to 1963, scientists in 1997 point their transmitter in the direction the
earth was in 1963. This was the only major flaw in an otherwise excellent
book.
Also see James White's _Tomorrow_Is_Too_Far_, in which it is discovered
that traveling a day back in time will put one in the outer solar system
because the whole solar system moved in the meanwhile. (Also, the time
travelers lose their memory and gradually regain it, both for no reason
I could understand.)
Both of these books share the implicit notion that it is the center of
our galaxy which is stationary. Presumably a time traveler there would
always remain in the same place. There is no better reason to regard
that as non-moving as anyplace else.
...KeithCREW@SU-SUSHI.ARPA (11/03/85)
From: Roger Crew <CREW@SU-SUSHI.ARPA> >>From: Alan Wexelblat <wex@mcc.ARPA> >> It seems to me that time travel *must* imply spatial ... >> travel because if you move in time, then the spot you >> left from is going to be in a different spatial location >> when you stop moving in time. >> >> This would only be true if velocities were absolute. >> They aren't. > >From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@MIT-MC.ARPA> > To say that the earth was 'there' in 1955 and will be > 'over there' in 2015 is meaningless... > > [ _Timescape_ and _Tomorrow_Is_Too_Far_ both ] share the > implicit notion that it is the center of our galaxy which > is stationary. There is no better reason to regard that > as non-moving as anyplace else. Strictly speaking, velocities are relative. There is a fix, however. One of the discoveries that accompanied that of the 3-degree background radiation (...think of it as stray photons left over from the Big Bang...) was the fact that there is a measurable doppler shift in this radiation. That is, it is possible to measure the velocity of the earth with respect to the ``primordial fireball.'' Once we do that, we can ascribe velocities to the sun, the center of our galaxy, etc... Thus we have, in some sense, a universal frame of reference, with respect to which the idea of an absolute velocity vector makes sense. One could point at a certain part of the sky, say that the earth is heading that way and say that, 100 years from now, we'll ``be'' a certain distance from here in that direction... This works provided we keep the times/distances small enough (cosmologically) that the notion of frames of reference still applies (i.e., don't try to say anything about where we'll be 10^9 years from now). Note that the idea of absolute location is still meaningless. None of this saves Gregory Benford, however, since the 3-degree radiation wasn't discovered until 1967; his physicist at UCwherever in 1962 wouldn't have known anything about it.... Roger Crew <crew@su-sushi.arpa> -------
vnend@ukecc.UUCP (D. W. James) (11/24/86)
For a good example of what it might be like, read "The Anubis Gates", by Tim Powers. In it an English Professor gets stranded in 19th Cen. London. He survives, though it is as much by luck as anything else. It is a good read anyway you look at it though. -- ******************************************************************************* Later y'all, Vnend Ignorance is the Mother of Adventure. *******************************************************************************
ecl@mtgzy.UUCP (11/24/86)
In article <1611@uw-june.UUCP>, ewan@uw-june.UUCP (Ewan Tempero) writes: > Yes it's called "The Day the Universe changed" subtitled...I forget > exactly "A personal view of change"? or something like that (I only see > it each week:-). Anyway, Peter Burke is up to his usual standards (slightly It's Jonathan Burke. Evelyn C. Leeper (201) 957-2070 UUCP: ihnp4!mtgzy!ecl ARPA: mtgzy!ecl@rutgers.rutgers.edu I didn't know it was impossible when I did it.
STEINBERG@RED.RUTGERS.EDU (11/25/86)
From: Louis Steinberg <STEINBERG@RED.RUTGERS.EDU>
I all this discussion of how an unprepared time traveler could survive
and/or make a fortune in the past, there's one point people seem to
largely miss. Until quite recently in historical terms, your
opportunities in life depended much more strongly on your social rank
and connections than they do for us today. Even if you did have
the technological knowledge to make a big advance, it would be quite
possible that you would not be given the opportunity to put it into
practice except in the role of advisor to some powerful personage
(guild master, local noble, etc.). You would get few of the profits,
have no control, and be in danger of being more or less dumped if
your patron thought that you were no longer needed. You would probably
find patrons much less excited by possible technological advances than
you would expect, and you would find great reluctance of people to get
involved in any way with a "stranger", i.e. someone they haven't grown
up with and whose family they don't know. There would be some avenues
open (e.g. the Church), but not nearly the freedom we would tend to expect.
Lou Steinberg
uucp: ...{harvard, seismo, ut-sally, sri-iu, ihnp4!packard}!topaz!steinber
*** NOTE - NO g ^
arpa: STEINBERG@RUTGERS.EDU.ARPA
-------bob@its63b.ed.ac.uk (ERCF08 Bob Gray) (11/26/86)
In article <1611@uw-june.UUCP> ewan@uw-june.UUCP (Ewan Tempero) writes: >In article <398@rutgers.RUTGERS.EDU>, PUGH%CCX.MFENET@LLL-MFE.ARPA writes: >> From: PUGH%CCX.MFENET@LLL-MFE.ARPA >> things like that. Remember Connections on PBS? (Isn't he doing a new show?) >Yes it's called "The Day the Universe changed" subtitled...I forget >exactly "A personal view of change"? or something like that (I only see >it each week:-). Anyway, Peter Burke ... His name is James Burke, and "Connections" was his TV series prior to "The day the Universe changed". Any more information on what his new show is? Is there one? Bob Gray ERCC.
warrenm@mmintl.UUCP (Warren McAllister) (11/27/86)
Actually it's James Burke ! :-}
warrenm@mmintl.UUCP (Warren McAllister) (11/27/86)
In article <825@ukecc.UUCP> vnend@ukecc.UUCP (D. W. James) writes: > > For a good example of what it might be like, read "The Anubis Gates", >by Tim Powers. In it an English Professor gets stranded in 19th Cen. London. >He survives, though it is as much by luck as anything else. It is a good >read anyway you look at it though. I must agree with D.W. James - "The Anubis Gates" was the best thing I read last year... By the way, on the continuing subject of Post Holocaust Novels, try "Dinner at Deviant's Palace' also by Tim Powers
rmtodd@uokmax.UUCP (Richard Michael Todd) (11/28/86)
In article <2268@mtgzy.UUCP>, ecl@mtgzy.UUCP writes: > > it each week:-). Anyway, Peter Burke is up to his usual standards (slightly > It's Jonathan Burke. Actually, it's James Burke. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Todd USSnail:820 Annie Court,Norman OK 73069 UUCP: {allegra!cbosgd|ihnp4}!okstate!uokmax!rmtodd