Skip to main content

Back in Time


As many of you know, I'm a fan of science fiction. Specifically, I've always been drawn to the notion of time travel, and whether or not it could ever be a reality. In truth, the implementation of such a concept terrifies me, as it could alter our known history or splinter events into multiple time streams. Regardless, it's a fascinating idea to consider, and I happen to believe that we already engage in time travel on a daily basis.

Allow me to explain.


For one, the the very fact that we exist at all means we are engaging in some form of time travel. We occupy space, and we age through the years. That, dear reader, is traveling through time and space, albeit at a pace not of our choosing. We can have a choice in the matter when traveling. Different modes of transport will all take us through space, but they can take us through time at different rates.

Consider a trip from Chicago to Los Angeles. That is roughly 2,000 miles. By car, it's about 31 hours. It's 43 hours by train. A non-stop flight will get you there in just a little over 4 hours. I call that time travel (of sorts). We're traveling in time and space, and the space is the same, but the time can differ. Someone traveling from Chicago to LA by plane will arrive at their destination sooner, and in a younger state, than someone making the same journey by train.

Isn't this what we're after with our standard, science-fiction definition of time travel?

Let's say there are two people (we'll call them A and B). They both exist in the year 2014, and both are 25-years-old, living in a first world country. Their chances of living to see the year 2039 are pretty good, but let's say that A is impatient, and wants to get there sooner. He builds a time machine, and travels 25 years in the space of, say, 2 minutes. B is happy with his lot in life, and waits to see 2039 at the regular pace. A and B meet-up twenty-five years later, but they each get there via different modes of transport (artifical vs. natural).

I dunno. It's a theory. It's something I like to think about. It may not hold up but, darn it, I'd like it to.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Yesterday's Restaurants

The local newspaper has a feature from one of Champaign-Urbana's most legendary restaurateur's, John Katsinas, on what his favorite area restaurants were that have now since closed (or will soon be closing).  It's a nice little read, and has made me stop and think about the restaurants that have come and gone that have left an indelible (and edible) impression on me throughout the years. Here we go....
Post a Comment
Read more

31 Days of Horror Movies: Thir13en Ghosts

While not a scholar or even a purist, I am somewhat of a film snob. Not a big fan of remakes, specifically when the originals don't need updating. It is therefore an unusual position I find myself in, preferring a remake to an original, and by leaps and bounds. Let's take a look at today's feature...
Post a Comment
Read more

31 Days of Horror Movies: The Woman In Black

Yesterday, we had a lady in white, and today we have.... The Woman In Black Just as Nosferatu was our oldest horror film to be reviewed this month, The Woman In Black is our most recent. Released earlier this year, the film stars Daniel Radcliffe in a more adult role than previously seen in his Harry Potter career. He plays a young lawyer whose wife died in childbirth, so he has been raising their son (mostly) on his own. With money tight, and his job on the line, the young attorney takes an assignment in a remote village, much to his dismay. The small, closed community Radcliffe's character finds himself in is apparently haunted by a woman dressed in all black. When she is seen, a child dies. She is seen quite a lot during the course of the film. The locals get edgy with the attorney, making him feel most unwelcome. And when he is doing his work, sorting through the papers of a deceased elderly woman, he discovers the secret of the woman in black. It doesn't
Post a Comment
Read more