info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Time and Again
177 views
Skip to first unread message
Michael F. Stemper
Jan 21, 2017, 1:48:49 PM1/21/17
to
I've had _Time and Again_ by Clifford D. Simak and _Time and Again_
by Jack Finney on my shelves for many years, and only thought of
the similarity in titles as a sign of the finite nature of "title
space".
I finally got around to *reading* the Finney last fall. It's a
quiet story for the most part. Its real novelty is in its method
of time travel, which reminds me of nothing so much as Professor
Harold Hill's "think system". If you want to travel to the 1880s,
you need to *think* 1880s. If you get yourself into enough of an
1880s feeling, you'll be there, so there's a large warehouse-like
building with sets from different eras to help travelers prepare.
I'm now reading the Simak for the first time in just over twenty
years. I had to check my book log to make sure, as I really don't
remember any of it. I most certainly did not remember this passage
where somebody from the future is explaining how time travel was
developed and works:
"Time is a mental concept," said Pringle. "They looked for
time everywhere else before they located it in the human
mind. They thought it was a fourth dimension. You remember
Einstein...."
[...]
"Well, anyhow," said Case, "this Michaelson of yours figured
out it was a mental concept, that time was in the mind only,
that it has no physical properties outside of Man's ability
to comprehend and encompass it. He found that a man with a
strong enough time sense ..."
Finney's time travel sounds like echoes of this. (I'm *not* saying
that they're identical.) Since he wrote a story with a similar time
travel mechanism and with an identical title, the obvious question
is raised. Did Finney write his story as a homage to Simak? Does
anybody here know? Either direct statements from him or evidence
that he was a Simak fan would be interesting.
--
Michael F. Stemper
A preposition is something you should never end a sentence with.
by Jack Finney on my shelves for many years, and only thought of
the similarity in titles as a sign of the finite nature of "title
space".
I finally got around to *reading* the Finney last fall. It's a
quiet story for the most part. Its real novelty is in its method
of time travel, which reminds me of nothing so much as Professor
Harold Hill's "think system". If you want to travel to the 1880s,
you need to *think* 1880s. If you get yourself into enough of an
1880s feeling, you'll be there, so there's a large warehouse-like
building with sets from different eras to help travelers prepare.
I'm now reading the Simak for the first time in just over twenty
years. I had to check my book log to make sure, as I really don't
remember any of it. I most certainly did not remember this passage
where somebody from the future is explaining how time travel was
developed and works:
"Time is a mental concept," said Pringle. "They looked for
time everywhere else before they located it in the human
mind. They thought it was a fourth dimension. You remember
Einstein...."
[...]
"Well, anyhow," said Case, "this Michaelson of yours figured
out it was a mental concept, that time was in the mind only,
that it has no physical properties outside of Man's ability
to comprehend and encompass it. He found that a man with a
strong enough time sense ..."
Finney's time travel sounds like echoes of this. (I'm *not* saying
that they're identical.) Since he wrote a story with a similar time
travel mechanism and with an identical title, the obvious question
is raised. Did Finney write his story as a homage to Simak? Does
anybody here know? Either direct statements from him or evidence
that he was a Simak fan would be interesting.
--
Michael F. Stemper
A preposition is something you should never end a sentence with.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Jan 22, 2017, 5:39:29 PM1/22/17
to
Heinlein's "Elsewhen" and Fletcher Pratt and L. Sprague deCamp's
"Incompleat Enchanter".
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.livejournal.com
TB
Jan 22, 2017, 10:58:23 PM1/22/17
to
On Saturday, January 21, 2017 at 10:48:49 AM UTC-8, Michael F. Stemper wrote:
> I've had _Time and Again_ by Clifford D. Simak and _Time and Again_
> by Jack Finney on my shelves for many years, and only thought of
> the similarity in titles as a sign of the finite nature of "title
> space".
>
> I finally got around to *reading* the Finney last fall. It's a
> quiet story for the most part. Its real novelty is in its method
> of time travel, which reminds me of nothing so much as Professor
> Harold Hill's "think system". If you want to travel to the 1880s,
> you need to *think* 1880s. If you get yourself into enough of an
> 1880s feeling, you'll be there, so there's a large warehouse-like
> building with sets from different eras to help travelers prepare.
How would I travel to the future?
> I've had _Time and Again_ by Clifford D. Simak and _Time and Again_
> by Jack Finney on my shelves for many years, and only thought of
> the similarity in titles as a sign of the finite nature of "title
> space".
>
> I finally got around to *reading* the Finney last fall. It's a
> quiet story for the most part. Its real novelty is in its method
> of time travel, which reminds me of nothing so much as Professor
> Harold Hill's "think system". If you want to travel to the 1880s,
> you need to *think* 1880s. If you get yourself into enough of an
> 1880s feeling, you'll be there, so there's a large warehouse-like
> building with sets from different eras to help travelers prepare.
Kevrob
Jan 22, 2017, 11:57:10 PM1/22/17
to
the past, starting in 1944.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professor_Carter_Nichols
Richard Matheson's protagonist in "Bid Time Return," filmed as
"Somewhere in Time," uses the mental transference method, also.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bid_Time_Return
Capt. John Carter of Virginia projected himself through
interplanetary space, mentally.
Now, knowing what we do about present-day Barsoom, is it a
suitable retcon to assume Carter cast himself through both
space AND time?
> How would I travel to the future?
Kevin R
Don Kuenz
Jan 23, 2017, 12:16:37 AM1/23/17
to
Zombie Dogs
Just as dogs preceded humans in making the first risky
voyages into space, a new generation of canines has now
made an equally path-breaking trip -- from life to death
and back again.
In a series of experiments, doctors at the Safar Center
for Resuscitation Research at the University of Pittsburgh
managed to plunge several dogs into a state of total, clinical
death before bringing them back to the land of the living. The
feat, the researchers say, points the way toward a time when
human beings will make a similar trip, not as a matter of
ghoulish curiosity but as a means of preserving life in the
face of otherwise fatal injuries.
(excerpt)
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/11/magazine/zombie-dogs.html
Michael, you ask a very interesting question, "Did Finney write his
story as a homage to Simak?"
Who knows?
Thank you,
--
Don Kuenz KB7RPU
He is immortal, not because he alone among creatures has an
inexhaustible voice, but because he has a soul, a spirit capable of
compassion and sacrifice and endurance. - William Faulkner
Dimensional Traveler
Jan 23, 2017, 12:25:58 AM1/23/17
to
--
Running the rec.arts.TV Channels Watched Survey.
Winter 2016 survey began Dec 01 and will end Feb 28
Michael F. Stemper
Jan 23, 2017, 11:35:42 AM1/23/17
to
On 2017-01-22 16:39, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
> On 1/21/17 1:48 PM, Michael F. Stemper wrote:
>> I've had _Time and Again_ by Clifford D. Simak and _Time and Again_
>> by Jack Finney on my shelves for many years, and only thought of
>> the similarity in titles as a sign of the finite nature of "title
>> space".
> On 1/21/17 1:48 PM, Michael F. Stemper wrote:
>> I've had _Time and Again_ by Clifford D. Simak and _Time and Again_
>> by Jack Finney on my shelves for many years, and only thought of
>> the similarity in titles as a sign of the finite nature of "title
>> space".
>> Finney's time travel sounds like echoes of this. (I'm *not* saying
>> that they're identical.) Since he wrote a story with a similar time
>> travel mechanism and with an identical title, the obvious question
>> is raised. Did Finney write his story as a homage to Simak? Does
>> anybody here know? Either direct statements from him or evidence
>> that he was a Simak fan would be interesting.
> I don't know for sure, but it's also closely related to Robert
> Heinlein's "Elsewhen" and Fletcher Pratt and L. Sprague deCamp's
> "Incompleat Enchanter".
Well, yeah, kind of, maybe. Modulo the facts that:
>> that they're identical.) Since he wrote a story with a similar time
>> travel mechanism and with an identical title, the obvious question
>> is raised. Did Finney write his story as a homage to Simak? Does
>> anybody here know? Either direct statements from him or evidence
>> that he was a Simak fan would be interesting.
> I don't know for sure, but it's also closely related to Robert
> Heinlein's "Elsewhen" and Fletcher Pratt and L. Sprague deCamp's
> "Incompleat Enchanter".
1. Those involve going, not into the past, but into parallel worlds.
2. In the Finney and presumably the Simak, you arrived pretty much
when you intended to. (This makes the user much more like Gandalf
in the PJ film and a lot less like the Doctor.)
--
Michael F. Stemper
There's no "me" in "team". There's no "us" in "team", either.
Michael F. Stemper
Jan 23, 2017, 11:37:20 AM1/23/17
to
than returning to your starting point from a journey to the past. It's
less explicit in the Simak, but pretty clear in the Finney.
David Johnston
Jan 23, 2017, 3:05:36 PM1/23/17
to
On 1/21/2017 11:48 AM, Michael F. Stemper wrote:
> "Well, anyhow," said Case, "this Michaelson of yours figured
> out it was a mental concept, that time was in the mind only,
> that it has no physical properties outside of Man's ability
> to comprehend and encompass it. He found that a man with a
> strong enough time sense ..."
>
> Finney's time travel sounds like echoes of this. (I'm *not* saying
> that they're identical.) Since he wrote a story with a similar time
> travel mechanism and with an identical title, the obvious question
> is raised. Did Finney write his story as a homage to Simak?
The identical title says "no". Using the same title goes beyond homage
> "Well, anyhow," said Case, "this Michaelson of yours figured
> out it was a mental concept, that time was in the mind only,
> that it has no physical properties outside of Man's ability
> to comprehend and encompass it. He found that a man with a
> strong enough time sense ..."
>
> Finney's time travel sounds like echoes of this. (I'm *not* saying
> that they're identical.) Since he wrote a story with a similar time
> travel mechanism and with an identical title, the obvious question
> is raised. Did Finney write his story as a homage to Simak?
when it happens deliberately.
Dorothy J Heydt
Jan 23, 2017, 3:30:08 PM1/23/17
to
In article <o65nj9$eui$4...@dont-email.me>,
Please note: you can't copyright a title.
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Robert Carnegie
Jan 23, 2017, 5:21:19 PM1/23/17
to
subject and with the same title as a previous
work, that's a "response". Not necessarily
in favour of the precursor.
(But a title may be your editor's choice, anyway.)
Mary Shelley did something like that when
she produced "Frankenstein; Or, The Modern
Prometheus." And today you can mention
Frankenstein to do it.
David Johnston
Jan 23, 2017, 5:48:50 PM1/23/17
to
An homage would be something like Psychohistorical Crisis a title that
refers to but is not the same as the original. No I suspect the
identical titles are the product of dealing with similar subject matter
making that kind of coincidence likely. Time and again is a common
idiom that mentions time and thus is likely to be used for time travel
stories.
hamis...@gmail.com
Jan 23, 2017, 5:54:47 PM1/23/17
to
David Johnston
Jan 23, 2017, 6:03:11 PM1/23/17
to
Robert Bannister
Jan 23, 2017, 6:41:51 PM1/23/17
to
the return journey manages to return a few minutes after the journey
began - how difficult would it be to stop it returning to the exact same
point in time as the departure, and how paradoxical would that be?
--
Robert B. born England a long time ago;
Western Australia since 1972
Michael F. Stemper
Jan 23, 2017, 7:06:58 PM1/23/17
to
I don't see how returning the same instant you left would lead to
paradoxes, however. Coming back before you left, yeah. (I think that
I've seen that, but couldn't say where.)
On the other hand, Laumer's _The Great Time Machine Hoax_ addresses this
differently -- people return to "when they came from" as much as twenty
years later than their departures. (At least I think so. I read my
father's copy in the 1960s.)
--
Michael F. Stemper
87.3% of all statistics are made up by the person giving them.
Robert Carnegie
Jan 23, 2017, 7:20:00 PM1/23/17
to
visit the year 1959, and then travel forward
to 11:55 today, you are still in the past, with
all the scope for paradox that that /may/ allow.
If two copies of the atoms of your body are
suddenly occupying the same space (returning to
the exact time and place when you left), that's
going to be worse than paradoxical.
Practically, the trip forward from past to present
probably follows a track that you cut through the
cosmic phloem on the way back to the past, and
delivers you just after the end of that track, i.e.
the instant after you originally left.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Jan 23, 2017, 7:51:57 PM1/23/17
to
Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote in
news:61cae826-2d28-4045...@googlegroups.com:
> If two copies of the atoms of your body are
> suddenly occupying the same space (returning to
> the exact time and place when you left), that's
> going to be worse than paradoxical.
Or not, as the author chooses.
Since, as best we can figure, time travel isn't possible,
*everything* about it is entirely up to the author's choices.
--
Terry Austin
Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB
"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek
Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
news:61cae826-2d28-4045...@googlegroups.com:
> If two copies of the atoms of your body are
> suddenly occupying the same space (returning to
> the exact time and place when you left), that's
> going to be worse than paradoxical.
>
> Practically, the trip forward from past to present
> probably follows a track that you cut through the
> cosmic phloem on the way back to the past, and
> delivers you just after the end of that track, i.e.
> the instant after you originally left.
>
Or not, as the author chooses.
> Practically, the trip forward from past to present
> probably follows a track that you cut through the
> cosmic phloem on the way back to the past, and
> delivers you just after the end of that track, i.e.
> the instant after you originally left.
>
Since, as best we can figure, time travel isn't possible,
*everything* about it is entirely up to the author's choices.
--
Terry Austin
Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB
"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek
Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
hamis...@gmail.com
Jan 23, 2017, 8:08:46 PM1/23/17
to
Scott Lurndal
Jan 24, 2017, 9:41:42 AM1/24/17
to
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> writes:
>Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote in
>news:61cae826-2d28-4045...@googlegroups.com:
>
>> If two copies of the atoms of your body are
>> suddenly occupying the same space (returning to
>> the exact time and place when you left), that's
>> going to be worse than paradoxical.
>
>Or not, as the author chooses.
>>
>> Practically, the trip forward from past to present
>> probably follows a track that you cut through the
>> cosmic phloem on the way back to the past, and
>> delivers you just after the end of that track, i.e.
>> the instant after you originally left.
>>
>Or not, as the author chooses.
>
>Since, as best we can figure, time travel isn't possible,
>*everything* about it is entirely up to the author's choices.
I thought it was pretty well accepted that time travel
>Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote in
>news:61cae826-2d28-4045...@googlegroups.com:
>
>> If two copies of the atoms of your body are
>> suddenly occupying the same space (returning to
>> the exact time and place when you left), that's
>> going to be worse than paradoxical.
>
>Or not, as the author chooses.
>>
>> Practically, the trip forward from past to present
>> probably follows a track that you cut through the
>> cosmic phloem on the way back to the past, and
>> delivers you just after the end of that track, i.e.
>> the instant after you originally left.
>>
>Or not, as the author chooses.
>
>Since, as best we can figure, time travel isn't possible,
>*everything* about it is entirely up to the author's choices.
_into the future_ is quite possible.
Just ask Rip Van Winkel.
Dorothy J Heydt
Jan 24, 2017, 11:15:07 AM1/24/17
to
In article <EIJhA.20399$Jt5....@fx40.iad>,
Yeah, but he's just as fictional as all the other time travel
stories.
In fact, time travel into the future IS possible. We're all
doing it, at the rate of twenty-four hours* per day.
To the great distress of some of us, who would like to stand
still or even go backward.
______
*Give or take. Earth's day and its year don't *quite* match up
evenly, and every now and then the people who care about such
things have to add another second to the year.
stories.
In fact, time travel into the future IS possible. We're all
doing it, at the rate of twenty-four hours* per day.
To the great distress of some of us, who would like to stand
still or even go backward.
______
*Give or take. Earth's day and its year don't *quite* match up
evenly, and every now and then the people who care about such
things have to add another second to the year.
Peter Trei
Jan 24, 2017, 12:13:58 PM1/24/17
to
too? In California, 3:59:59 PM was followed by 3:59:60 PM, before you
reached 4:00:00 PM
pt
Michael F. Stemper
Jan 24, 2017, 1:06:09 PM1/24/17
to
On 2017-01-23 18:19, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> On Monday, 23 January 2017 23:41:51 UTC, Robert Bannister wrote:
>> On 24/1/17 12:37 am, Michael F. Stemper wrote:
>>> On 2017-01-22 21:58, TB wrote:
>>>> How would I travel to the future?
>>>
>>> I don't believe that that was a supported mode in either of these, other
>>> than returning to your starting point from a journey to the past. It's
>>> less explicit in the Simak, but pretty clear in the Finney.
>>>
>> One of the things no time travel story I've read ever makes clear is how
>> the return journey manages to return a few minutes after the journey
>> began - how difficult would it be to stop it returning to the exact same
>> point in time as the departure, and how paradoxical would that be?
>
> Well, if you leave the present day at 12:00 and
> visit the year 1959, and then travel forward
> to 11:55 today, you are still in the past, with
> all the scope for paradox that that /may/ allow.
> On Monday, 23 January 2017 23:41:51 UTC, Robert Bannister wrote:
>> On 24/1/17 12:37 am, Michael F. Stemper wrote:
>>> On 2017-01-22 21:58, TB wrote:
>>>> How would I travel to the future?
>>>
>>> I don't believe that that was a supported mode in either of these, other
>>> than returning to your starting point from a journey to the past. It's
>>> less explicit in the Simak, but pretty clear in the Finney.
>>>
>> One of the things no time travel story I've read ever makes clear is how
>> the return journey manages to return a few minutes after the journey
>> began - how difficult would it be to stop it returning to the exact same
>> point in time as the departure, and how paradoxical would that be?
>
> Well, if you leave the present day at 12:00 and
> visit the year 1959, and then travel forward
> to 11:55 today, you are still in the past, with
> all the scope for paradox that that /may/ allow.
> Practically, the trip forward from past to present
> probably follows a track that you cut through the
> cosmic phloem on the way back to the past, and
> delivers you just after the end of that track, i.e.
> the instant after you originally left.
On the other hand, if you travel N years into the past, spend an
> probably follows a track that you cut through the
> cosmic phloem on the way back to the past, and
> delivers you just after the end of that track, i.e.
> the instant after you originally left.
hour there, and travel N years into the future, your arrival will
be an hour after your departure. I think that is a pretty common
(if unstated) assumption behind many time travel stories.
--
Michael F. Stemper
Isaiah 10:1-2
tsbr...@gmail.com
Jan 24, 2017, 1:18:18 PM1/24/17
to
I was expecting a Voyager episode!
David Johnston
Jan 24, 2017, 2:15:18 PM1/24/17
to
Dorothy J Heydt
Jan 24, 2017, 3:00:07 PM1/24/17
to
In article <d0abcf8d-6020-49bb...@googlegroups.com>,
I think I must've been taking a nap at that point.
Dorothy J Heydt
Jan 24, 2017, 3:00:08 PM1/24/17
to
In article <o684v9$2k9$1...@dont-email.me>,
Unless you're the Doctor, who frequently arrives *far* earlier
and/or later than when he'd intended to arrive. He says to the
TARDIS in one episode, "You never take me where I want to go!"
and she replies, "But I always take you where you need to go."
and/or later than when he'd intended to arrive. He says to the
TARDIS in one episode, "You never take me where I want to go!"
and she replies, "But I always take you where you need to go."
Dimensional Traveler
Jan 24, 2017, 3:52:14 PM1/24/17
to
the technobabble was that the time machine's path coming "back" had to
cross over its path going to the past in order to balance the energy. I
thought that was one of the better reasons I've seen.
Dimensional Traveler
Jan 24, 2017, 3:53:38 PM1/24/17
to
Robert Carnegie
Jan 24, 2017, 4:38:39 PM1/24/17
to
point in space - which seems to be a popular
technique in fiction - in fact the planet Earth
was elsewhere in space at that time, for most
useful intervals of time travel.
There is approximately one science fiction
story to write about this, where it comes as
a surprise to the traveller. A slight variation
is to use it to get rid of an enemy, or to escape
from an enemy if you are equipped to survive
the experience.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Jan 24, 2017, 4:44:30 PM1/24/17
to
David Johnston <Davidjo...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:o6890v$fif
$6...@dont-email.me:
It is when you're desparately trying to defend a stupid position,
and have nothing to work with but word games.
And pretending a work of fiction is real.
$6...@dont-email.me:
and have nothing to work with but word games.
And pretending a work of fiction is real.
David Johnston
Jan 24, 2017, 5:12:21 PM1/24/17
to
Quadibloc
Jan 24, 2017, 5:30:52 PM1/24/17
to
On Sunday, January 22, 2017 at 9:57:10 PM UTC-7, Kevrob wrote:
(quoting someone)
> the past, starting in 1944.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professor_Carter_Nichols
I was thinking of that when I saw that post!
John Savard
(quoting someone)
> > > I finally got around to *reading* the Finney last fall. It's a
> > > quiet story for the most part. Its real novelty is in its method
> > > of time travel, which reminds me of nothing so much as Professor
> > > Harold Hill's "think system". If you want to travel to the 1880s,
> > > you need to *think* 1880s. If you get yourself into enough of an
> > > 1880s feeling, you'll be there, so there's a large warehouse-like
> > > building with sets from different eras to help travelers prepare.
> "Time Travel Hypnosis" was the way Batman and Robin had adventures in
> > > quiet story for the most part. Its real novelty is in its method
> > > of time travel, which reminds me of nothing so much as Professor
> > > Harold Hill's "think system". If you want to travel to the 1880s,
> > > you need to *think* 1880s. If you get yourself into enough of an
> > > 1880s feeling, you'll be there, so there's a large warehouse-like
> > > building with sets from different eras to help travelers prepare.
> the past, starting in 1944.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professor_Carter_Nichols
I was thinking of that when I saw that post!
John Savard
Michael F. Stemper
Jan 24, 2017, 6:01:19 PM1/24/17
to
On 2017-01-24 15:38, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> On Tuesday, 24 January 2017 00:20:00 UTC, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>> On Monday, 23 January 2017 23:41:51 UTC, Robert Bannister wrote:
>>> One of the things no time travel story I've read ever makes clear is how
>>> the return journey manages to return a few minutes after the journey
>>> began - how difficult would it be to stop it returning to the exact same
>>> point in time as the departure, and how paradoxical would that be?
>>
>> Well, if you leave the present day at 12:00 and
>> visit the year 1959, and then travel forward
>> to 11:55 today, you are still in the past, with
>> all the scope for paradox that that /may/ allow.
> On Tuesday, 24 January 2017 00:20:00 UTC, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>> On Monday, 23 January 2017 23:41:51 UTC, Robert Bannister wrote:
>>> One of the things no time travel story I've read ever makes clear is how
>>> the return journey manages to return a few minutes after the journey
>>> began - how difficult would it be to stop it returning to the exact same
>>> point in time as the departure, and how paradoxical would that be?
>>
>> Well, if you leave the present day at 12:00 and
>> visit the year 1959, and then travel forward
>> to 11:55 today, you are still in the past, with
>> all the scope for paradox that that /may/ allow.
>> Practically, the trip forward from past to present
>> probably follows a track that you cut through the
>> cosmic phloem on the way back to the past, and
>> delivers you just after the end of that track, i.e.
>> the instant after you originally left.
>
> Oh - and if you travel back in time to the same
> point in space - which seems to be a popular
> technique in fiction - in fact the planet Earth
> was elsewhere in space at that time, for most
> useful intervals of time travel.
>
> There is approximately one science fiction
> story to write about this, where it comes as
> a surprise to the traveller.
The first story I know of that explicitly addressed this issue
>> probably follows a track that you cut through the
>> cosmic phloem on the way back to the past, and
>> delivers you just after the end of that track, i.e.
>> the instant after you originally left.
>
> Oh - and if you travel back in time to the same
> point in space - which seems to be a popular
> technique in fiction - in fact the planet Earth
> was elsewhere in space at that time, for most
> useful intervals of time travel.
>
> There is approximately one science fiction
> story to write about this, where it comes as
> a surprise to the traveller.
is _The Time Axis_, by Henry Kuttner.
--
Michael F. Stemper
I feel more like I do now than I did when I came in.
Robert Bannister
Jan 24, 2017, 8:34:51 PM1/24/17
to
lovely word.
Robert Bannister
Jan 24, 2017, 8:36:09 PM1/24/17
to
Robert Bannister
Jan 24, 2017, 8:37:42 PM1/24/17
to
Don Kuenz
Jan 24, 2017, 9:07:31 PM1/24/17
to
center of the Milky Way Galaxy at 515,000 miles per hour (828,000
kilometers per hour). [1] If you give storied time machines the
benefit of the doubt then they can implicitly compensate for this
movement, whether they know it or not. The time machine in
_Enemy of the State_ (Wilson) is different. It explicitly exploits
movement through space.
spoiler space
When the precise nanosecond for firing arrived, the timer
pulsed the trigger, which in turn sent a signal to the Barsky
box in the vault, activating it. The money in the vault, along
with small amounts of synthestone from the walls and floors,
abruptly disappeared. The package traveled 1.37 nanoseconds
into the past and appeared in the air over Primus City at the
exact locus the treasury vault was destined to occupy 1.37
from then.
Note.
1. http://www.space.com/19915-milky-way-galaxy.html
Thank you,
--
Don Kuenz KB7RPU
Backward, turn backward, O Time, in your flight,
Make me a child again just for tonight!
- Elizabeth Akers Allen
tsbr...@gmail.com
Jan 24, 2017, 9:18:19 PM1/24/17
to
Gene Wirchenko
Jan 24, 2017, 10:03:25 PM1/24/17
to
On Tue, 24 Jan 2017 15:58:12 GMT, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J
Heydt) wrote:
[snip]
>In fact, time travel into the future IS possible. We're all
>doing it, at the rate of twenty-four hours* per day.
Nope. It never works. We just stay in the present.
[snip]
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
Heydt) wrote:
[snip]
>In fact, time travel into the future IS possible. We're all
>doing it, at the rate of twenty-four hours* per day.
[snip]
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
Titus G
Jan 24, 2017, 11:25:29 PM1/24/17
to
On 25/01/17 16:03, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Jan 2017 15:58:12 GMT, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J
> Heydt) wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>> In fact, time travel into the future IS possible. We're all
>> doing it, at the rate of twenty-four hours* per day.
>
> Nope. It never works. We just stay in the present.
Hasn't this been considered here before? Isn't there nothing but the
> On Tue, 24 Jan 2017 15:58:12 GMT, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J
> Heydt) wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>> In fact, time travel into the future IS possible. We're all
>> doing it, at the rate of twenty-four hours* per day.
>
> Nope. It never works. We just stay in the present.
immediate and the immediate past because the instant you start to think
about the present, it is the past, etc ?
Is the answer to my first question in the thread title?
Titus G
Jan 24, 2017, 11:26:18 PM1/24/17
to
On 25/01/17 15:05, Don Kuenz wrote:
> Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 24 January 2017 00:20:00 UTC, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>>> On Monday, 23 January 2017 23:41:51 UTC, Robert Bannister wrote:
>>>> On 24/1/17 12:37 am, Michael F. Stemper wrote:
>>>>> On 2017-01-22 21:58, TB wrote:
>>>>>> On Saturday, January 21, 2017 at 10:48:49 AM UTC-8, Michael F. Stemper
>>>>>> wrote:
An interesting thread, thank you.
> Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 24 January 2017 00:20:00 UTC, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>>> On Monday, 23 January 2017 23:41:51 UTC, Robert Bannister wrote:
>>>> On 24/1/17 12:37 am, Michael F. Stemper wrote:
>>>>> On 2017-01-22 21:58, TB wrote:
>>>>>> On Saturday, January 21, 2017 at 10:48:49 AM UTC-8, Michael F. Stemper
>>>>>> wrote:
Titus G
Jan 24, 2017, 11:42:00 PM1/24/17
to
On 25/01/17 17:25, Titus G wrote:
> On 25/01/17 16:03, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>> On Tue, 24 Jan 2017 15:58:12 GMT, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J
>> Heydt) wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> In fact, time travel into the future IS possible. We're all
>>> doing it, at the rate of twenty-four hours* per day.
>>
>> Nope. It never works. We just stay in the present.
>
> Hasn't this been considered here before? Isn't there nothing but the
> immediate
FUTURE
> On 25/01/17 16:03, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>> On Tue, 24 Jan 2017 15:58:12 GMT, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J
>> Heydt) wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> In fact, time travel into the future IS possible. We're all
>>> doing it, at the rate of twenty-four hours* per day.
>>
>> Nope. It never works. We just stay in the present.
>
> Hasn't this been considered here before? Isn't there nothing but the
> immediate
Gene Wirchenko
Jan 25, 2017, 12:02:20 AM1/25/17
to
On Wed, 25 Jan 2017 09:36:06 +0800, Robert Bannister
<rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
[snip]
>While I wasn't looking, somebody's been adding years to my years.
NO! Who would do such a thing?
>--
Robert B. born England a long long long time ago;
(faraway galaxy optional)
>Western Australia since 1972
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
<rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
[snip]
>While I wasn't looking, somebody's been adding years to my years.
>--
Robert B. born England a long long long time ago;
(faraway galaxy optional)
>Western Australia since 1972
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
Robert Carnegie
Jan 25, 2017, 2:46:01 AM1/25/17
to
travel, that's an angle I hadn't thought of and
one to surprise Batman, Sherlock, the readers,
etc. "The Adventure of the Evacuated Exchequer".
As for the outcome - I see,
<http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/315239.An_Enemy_of_the_State>
refers to making it rain money. So a political
rather than an obviously practical act.
A short story by Isaac Asimov also comes to
mind now, but I don't want to spoil it too much.
Decode if you want - devil involves pact the
with it a.
devil.
David DeLaney
Jan 25, 2017, 4:20:24 AM1/25/17
to
>>>>> Practically, the trip forward from past to present
>>>>> probably follows a track that you cut through the
>>>>> cosmic phloem on the way back to the past, and
>>>>> delivers you just after the end of that track, i.e.
>>>>> the instant after you originally left.
Speaking of which, has anyone mentioned Ian Wallace's "Croyd" books yet?
>>>>> probably follows a track that you cut through the
>>>>> cosmic phloem on the way back to the past, and
>>>>> delivers you just after the end of that track, i.e.
>>>>> the instant after you originally left.
Dave, where IIRC time travel to the past is possible but more difficult the
further back you want to go?
ps: come to think of it, Moran's Great Wheel has at least two entirely
different methods of time travel used in various stories/fragments, one of
which only works when your timeline's far enough away from the Entity bound to
the Pole of Law
--
\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
gatekeeper.vic.com/~dbd - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
J. Clarke
Jan 25, 2017, 5:08:04 AM1/25/17
to
In article <o68jcv$psp$1...@dont-email.me>,
Davidjo...@yahoo.com says...
You end up in the same place so how is there a
difference? I think what you want is to be able
to travel to the future and _return_ which
implies being able to travel to the past from
the future.
Davidjo...@yahoo.com says...
difference? I think what you want is to be able
to travel to the future and _return_ which
implies being able to travel to the past from
the future.
J. Clarke
Jan 25, 2017, 5:19:45 AM1/25/17
to
In article <s95g8c5o004lkmcv59evvu3s6jsk6c3irc@
4ax.com>, ge...@telus.net says...
still be in the present.
4ax.com>, ge...@telus.net says...
>
> On Tue, 24 Jan 2017 15:58:12 GMT, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J
> Heydt) wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >In fact, time travel into the future IS possible. We're all
> >doing it, at the rate of twenty-four hours* per day.
>
> Nope. It never works. We just stay in the present.
In the future, however you get there, you'll
> On Tue, 24 Jan 2017 15:58:12 GMT, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J
> Heydt) wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >In fact, time travel into the future IS possible. We're all
> >doing it, at the rate of twenty-four hours* per day.
>
> Nope. It never works. We just stay in the present.
still be in the present.
Robert Carnegie
Jan 25, 2017, 7:05:28 AM1/25/17
to
Although, most people travelling, later return
to the same place - if, again, we disregard
the movement of the Earth itself through space.
> I think what you want is to be able
> to travel to the future and _return_ which
> implies being able to travel to the past from
> the future.
why it's more interesting to discuss.
Joe Bernstein
Jan 25, 2017, 12:35:00 PM1/25/17
to
On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 1:38:39 PM UTC-8, Robert Carnegie
wrote, quoting himself:
> > Practically, the trip forward from past to present
> > probably follows a track that you cut through the
> > cosmic phloem on the way back to the past, and
> > delivers you just after the end of that track, i.e.
> > the instant after you originally left.
>
> Oh - and if you travel back in time to the same
> point in space - which seems to be a popular
> technique in fiction - in fact the planet Earth
> was elsewhere in space at that time, for most
> useful intervals of time travel.
>
> There is approximately one science fiction
> story to write about this, where it comes as
> a surprise to the traveller.
Well, then there's more than one, because in Kay Kenyon's <Leap Point>
it's part of the premise and no surprise to anyone.
(I'd forgotten <The Time Axis>, which I'm pretty sure I recently re-
read, though.)
-- JLB
wrote, quoting himself:
> > Practically, the trip forward from past to present
> > probably follows a track that you cut through the
> > cosmic phloem on the way back to the past, and
> > delivers you just after the end of that track, i.e.
> > the instant after you originally left.
>
> Oh - and if you travel back in time to the same
> point in space - which seems to be a popular
> technique in fiction - in fact the planet Earth
> was elsewhere in space at that time, for most
> useful intervals of time travel.
>
> There is approximately one science fiction
> story to write about this, where it comes as
> a surprise to the traveller.
it's part of the premise and no surprise to anyone.
(I'd forgotten <The Time Axis>, which I'm pretty sure I recently re-
read, though.)
-- JLB
Robert Woodward
Jan 25, 2017, 12:38:28 PM1/25/17
to
In article <pOydnQXKN5BM8BXF...@earthlink.com>,
century forward, and then couldn't get back because of ever increasing
energy requirements (and stopping a bit didn't help).
--
"We have advanced to new and surprising levels of bafflement."
Imperial Auditor Miles Vorkosigan describes progress in _Komarr_.
-------------------------------------------------------
Robert Woodward robe...@drizzle.com
David DeLaney <davidd...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >>>>> Practically, the trip forward from past to present
> >>>>> probably follows a track that you cut through the
> >>>>> cosmic phloem on the way back to the past, and
> >>>>> delivers you just after the end of that track, i.e.
> >>>>> the instant after you originally left.
>
> Speaking of which, has anyone mentioned Ian Wallace's "Croyd" books yet?
>
> Dave, where IIRC time travel to the past is possible but more difficult the
> further back you want to go?
In Poul Anderson's "Flight to Forever", our brave time explorers went a
> >>>>> Practically, the trip forward from past to present
> >>>>> probably follows a track that you cut through the
> >>>>> cosmic phloem on the way back to the past, and
> >>>>> delivers you just after the end of that track, i.e.
> >>>>> the instant after you originally left.
>
> Speaking of which, has anyone mentioned Ian Wallace's "Croyd" books yet?
>
> Dave, where IIRC time travel to the past is possible but more difficult the
> further back you want to go?
century forward, and then couldn't get back because of ever increasing
energy requirements (and stopping a bit didn't help).
--
"We have advanced to new and surprising levels of bafflement."
Imperial Auditor Miles Vorkosigan describes progress in _Komarr_.
-------------------------------------------------------
Robert Woodward robe...@drizzle.com
Dorothy J Heydt
Jan 25, 2017, 4:00:06 PM1/25/17
to
In article <robertaw-0FE711...@news.individual.net>,
Robert Woodward <robe...@drizzle.com> wrote:
>In article <pOydnQXKN5BM8BXF...@earthlink.com>,
> David DeLaney <davidd...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> >>>>> Practically, the trip forward from past to present
>> >>>>> probably follows a track that you cut through the
>> >>>>> cosmic phloem on the way back to the past, and
>> >>>>> delivers you just after the end of that track, i.e.
>> >>>>> the instant after you originally left.
>>
>> Speaking of which, has anyone mentioned Ian Wallace's "Croyd" books yet?
>>
>> Dave, where IIRC time travel to the past is possible but more difficult the
>> further back you want to go?
>
>In Poul Anderson's "Flight to Forever", our brave time explorers went a
>century forward, and then couldn't get back because of ever increasing
>energy requirements (and stopping a bit didn't help).
Just couldn't generate those 1.21 gigawatts?
>In article <pOydnQXKN5BM8BXF...@earthlink.com>,
> David DeLaney <davidd...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> >>>>> Practically, the trip forward from past to present
>> >>>>> probably follows a track that you cut through the
>> >>>>> cosmic phloem on the way back to the past, and
>> >>>>> delivers you just after the end of that track, i.e.
>> >>>>> the instant after you originally left.
>>
>> Speaking of which, has anyone mentioned Ian Wallace's "Croyd" books yet?
>>
>> Dave, where IIRC time travel to the past is possible but more difficult the
>> further back you want to go?
>
>In Poul Anderson's "Flight to Forever", our brave time explorers went a
>century forward, and then couldn't get back because of ever increasing
>energy requirements (and stopping a bit didn't help).
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Jan 25, 2017, 4:17:37 PM1/25/17
to
djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote in
news:oKCrs...@kithrup.com:
Maybe bananas had gone extinct?
news:oKCrs...@kithrup.com:
Robert Bannister
Jan 25, 2017, 11:01:16 PM1/25/17
to
And revolving at 900 miles an hour.
It's orbiting at 19 miles a second, so it's reckoned,
The sun that is the source of all our power.
Now the sun, and you and me, and all the stars that we can see,
Are moving at a million miles a day,
In the outer spiral arm, at 40,000 miles an hour,
Of a galaxy we call the Milky Way.
For a song, the numbers are pretty close to the real thing.
--
0 new messages