posted on Feb, 13 2010 @ 12:03 AM
My first encounter with time travel took place in 1960. I was a reluctant, cynical child back then (how things change), and I didn't appreciate
being carried by my parents into a darkened movie theatre to view "The Time Machine," starring Rod Taylor. The pseudo-scientific banter on screen
didn't especially impress me, nor did the primative stop-motion special effects. Only one scene in the film really interested me, as a matter of
fact: It was that contrived moment (which H.G. Welles never penned) when Rod Taylor is buried in a lava floe, and the Time Machine's
time-bubble-effect prevents him from being incinerated. Taylor waits for ages as natural processes erode the igneous material away from his time
bubble, until daylight eventually falls upon him 800,000 years later.
It was then, enamored with the Minoan murals of the walls and ceilings of the "El Capitan" theatre, that I experienced a childish revelation:
"Space moves AROUND a time traveler."
That was some 48 years ago, and I've been thinking about time travel in much the same way ever since — not that molten lava physically morphs
around a time traveler, but that the human perspective observes the universe MOVING past us. The inseparability of space and time is reinforced by
Newtonian and Einsteinian observation — that what we call Space and Time are only perceptual facets of a continuum: "Past, present and future are
only illusions, however persistent."
Relativistic space/time theory usually bounces off modern physics students as a "given" — when we traverse space, we also traverse time, within
the limits of a light-speed-maximum universe. But the inverse must be true, as well: When we traverse time, we also traverse space. The Earth of 100
years ago is far removed spatially from our Earth of today, relative to an imaginary fixed point "outside" of this universe. This revelation has
colored my view to such an extent that I have to cringe at most popular representations of time travel, for these representations shape popular
expectations, which, in turn, shape popular pursuits.
In the case of "time travel," the pursuit may indeed be a goose chase.
Let's put this into perspective. The typical human time travel scenario follows: A.) Human builds a Time Machine. B.) Human briefly deliberates on
the possible consequences of time travel. C.) Against all logic, human hops into the Time Machine and takes a spin. D.) Human emerges in the future
or past on Earth to find a radically different society, and so attempts to alter human outcome. This is the basic outline for virtually every human
time travel fantasy yet concocted: Human-Earth-Centric-Regret-Fantasy.
The problem is, it can't happen that way in the Einsteinian universe. Should we physically defy Time, we necessarily defy Space, creating or
accessing a dimension OUTSIDE of this space/time continuum (an alternate-space/time-effect). The "alternate dimension" scenario is essential if we
are to retain any sense of continuity; otherwise, we would never know if our time traveling efforts were successful. Indeed, in defying Space/Time,
we have also defied the rest of spatial physics — including GRAVITY.
So, WHAT force is causing our Time Machine to adhere to Earth's surface as we move forward or backward in time? How do we step into a Time Machine
in 20th Century Topeka, Kansas, and emerge in Topeka, Kansas, 100 years in the past or future?
The answer is, we DON'T, if we merely defy the Space/Time continuum. Instead, the moment we activate our fiendishly complex Time Machine, we
sidestep physical law, becoming a stationary non-entity relative to the rest of this cosmos. We are unaffected by macro-gravitation. When and if we
finally re-enter normal space/time, the Earth is nowhere to be found, nor is the rest of our solar system. Depending on the intensity and duration of
our "time warp," we may find ourselves deep in interstellar space — with no recognizable constellations to guide us home — or even outside of
the Milky Way altogether, lost in the intergalactic void.
At this point, we come to fully appreciate the expanding universe theory, and we realize that time travel is not all it's cracked up to be. Whatever
reasons we had for attempting this experiment in the first place are forgotten — We have pulled over to the shoulder on the superhighway of
existence, and our entire universe has moved past us while we were parked. How is it that this dreadful pitfall is never addressed in the popular
consideration of time travel?
Come to think of it, the only way a time traveler might emerge from the alternate-time-arrow-effect and find himself back on Earth, at some past or
future date, would be if the Earth was indeed stationary, at the virtual center of the universe. Charles Fort would have fun with this concept, I can
imagine.
In fact, Fort addressed a vaguely similar topic when considering repeated skyfalls on specific points of the Earth's surface. Likening the Earth to
an apple tossed into the air, Fort envisioned a chaotic flock of birds zooming in and selectively pecking only one small spot on the apple's spinning
skin. This seemed such an unlikelihood to Fort that he theorized the Earth is not spinning nor moving through the universe at all — it must be
stationary, at the center of a shell-like universe, and that specific locations on Earth's surface were "targeted" for repeated skyfalls over long
intervals.
Fort may have rendered his "notions" tongue-in-cheek; however, many respected scientists today — and certainly ALL of our science fantasy authors
— subscribe to the stationary earth theory (whether or not they realize it) when pondering time travel.
I've heard several notable mouthpieces of the scientific establishment, including Carl Sagan and Stephen Hawkings, comment on the plausibility of
time travel — breaking it down so far as quantum gravity paradox and exploding time machines and so forth — yet they always seem to return to the
highschool drama of some hypothetical time traveler killing his hypothetical great-great-grandfather, thus altering linear time/space. Many of the
greatest minds apparently make this leap of reasoning, without explaining HOW or WHY a time traveler would arrive back on Earth at all.
Just from a common sense perspective, a time traveler would never meet his distant ancestors or descendents, unless the time traveler was also
exceptionally gifted in interstellar navigation and was in possession of the precise spatial coordinates of Earth, relative to the rest of the
expanding universe, for a precise Earth date and time (in addition to possessing an interstellar propulsion system). That's one tall order. The
much more difficult aspect of time travel is FINDING YOUR WAY HOME.
As we have seen in more recent science fantasies, the science of time travel is not nearly as vital to the storyline as is the imposition of our
modern political correctness onto distant past and future generations. Again, any explanation of HOW we arrive back on Earth following time travel is
artistically swept under the carpet.
— Doc Velocity
[edit on 2/13/2010 by Doc Velocity]