: I just read the book 'River of Time' by Dr.Igor Novikov. It was a fascinating book that talks about the flow of time, how we will acheive future time travel (this is possible and is not fiction, technology is the only thing holding us back), and the possibilty of traveling back in time (they're still arguing about this). I came across a paragraph in the introduction that made me immediately think of this forum, and your not going to like it. Please do not hunt me down and shoot me for mentioning his thoughts, I just think they will bring ALOT of discussion and maybe liven up this place.

: "... These images (acheivements of physics) can be understood without mathematics and can be admired and applauded. Remember, however, that if you are not a professional, not a physicist, do not entertain the illusion that having read a popular physics book you may be able to offer 'hypothesis' that would solve the difficulties outlined in the book. Nothing good will come out of it. An image is definately not 'her majesty physics'. To offer a useful hypothesis, one has to become professional; however, everyone can enjoy an image drawn by a professional. : By way of comparison, I can say that I love music passionately but that God did not grant me a musical ear. I will never write music, nor even produce an elementary tune. I do enjoy listening to music written by (talented) professionals and performed by equally professional (also talented) individuals, and will continue to do so."

: -Novikov (The River of Time, Pg xii)

: I'll mention again this is not my idea, just one that is perhaps very invoking for some. I am a second year physics student and plan to become "professional" so it is a non-issue in my case. When I read this it kind of made me angry as I like to dream about theories that will solve many problems and unite physics, however, Novikov's point is logical.

: Agree? : Disagree?

: Maybe someone knows of an idea by a non-professional that has become an accepted theory; However, the post by "Professor Rob" a few days back speaks for itself. ::::::::::::: I would really like to hear you elaborate on why you think "time travel is not fiction, only the technology is holding us back."

The first thing you have to prove to me is that the future or the past are actually tangible "somethings" you can travel to. Then we'll tackle the position problems since any travel to "somewhen" else also has to involve travel to "somewhere" else. (We are obviously moving thru space as we speak.) How you intend to calculate "where" those specific places in a target past/future are should prove really interesting.

• Travelling into the future is OK . - Galnew Einhaw - July 28, 1999 - 01:58 UTC
  • Re: Travelling into the future is OK . - daViper - July 28, 1999 - 21:37 UTC
    • Re: Travelling into the future is OK . - Galnew Einhaw - July 29, 1999 - 00:08 UTC
      • Re: Travelling into the future is OK . - daViper - July 29, 1999 - 00:52 UTC
        • Re: Travelling into the future is OK . - Galnew Einhaw - July 29, 1999 - 21:17 UTC
          • Re: Travelling into the future is OK . - daViper - July 30, 1999 - 00:42 UTC
            • Re: Travelling into the future is OK . - Galnew Einhaw - July 30, 1999 - 08:31 UTC
              • Re: Travelling into the future is OK . - daViper - July 30, 1999 - 19:17 UTC
    • Historic words - Science=Religion? - August 3, 1999 - 13:55 UTC