Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Yay! Time for a thread all about opinion based on the interesting collection of facts.

The premise is simple, but the game is long and complex. To start off with, I am going to choose a Historical Figure whom has been assassinated by a Time Travellers from our time, hoping to change the world for the better. What you then do, is use your Google-Fu, Historical knowledge etc, to postulate how this action would affect the world as we know it. Ultimately of course, there will be no definitive answer, but I feel it's a worth while execise for the Dakka Denziens to under take (not the actual assassination, just the working out of the ripples!).

The person chosen to be knobbled is done fairly randomly. I think I will go for......Isaac Newton, the man who first came up with the theory of gravity, no doubt amongst other things. No particula reason why, and I certainly hold no grudge against the man.

So, off you go. I'd imagine the best place to start your research would be his biography. For ease of research, we will assume his assassination follows the initial plan of Skynet, kill the bugger by preventing his birth...

"Hey, dad? If I went back in time, and had intercourse with my younger self, would that be gay, or mastubation?"

sA

Well its argued that Newton invented Calculus. As such millions of students would probably pay good money for this to have been a reality. I know I would have...

Ramifications? Many many less Fs in school. Less study time equals more time for play equals more Jagermeister which equals more kids which equals Bob the Future Emperor of Mankind (Spass Marienss Hurr!).

So at the end of the Day Space Nazis come into being, all because I wanted an A.

If Newton died, we would all still be floating around because of our lack of knowledge about gravity.

You can't have Newtonian Physics without Calculus. It's like saying you can have ice cream without milk.

^ True, the only thing is, if Newton hadn't discovered it, would someone else have? I think the probability is, they would have. Science was heading that way anyway, Newton was just the first with enough grey matter to joined the dots. It's not like his mind was special though, someone else would have. The only thing there then is how log, I mean any length of time would have some effect on todays world. I'd imagine any longer then 50 years and it would be very different.

I suspect much the same.

The discoveries made, unless entirely accidental (like Penicillin is said to have been) would have been worked out eventually.

But regardless of Calculus etc, when it comes to Gravity, how far would we be set back if it took another 50 years to work out? I'm not a physicist (weakest of the three sciences for me!) but I get the feeling the understanding of flight might have suffered without first knowing about Gravity, seeing as the shape of the wing aids the plane in defying Gravity, allowing it to fly. I think. Like I said, not a physicist by any stretch of the imagination!

I think the bigger question is, whether anyone else would have stepped into that role? Would any other one person have developed so much? If one person doesn't discover the laws of physics and calculus, I think it potentially sets back the sciences at least 100 years. This was an age where knowledge wasn't quickly passed from one person to another (although it was passed). If all of Newton's discoveries, instead of being discovered by one person, are instead discovered by multiple people, I think it could easily take another 100 years for science to get to the same point.

If you set science back 100 years, that has a huge effect. Certainly flight is set back, but so are a lot of things. I think it's easy to say that we'd be at least 50 years behind where we are today, if not more.

If we're 100 years behind where we should be, then time travel will never be invented* and so how did Newton actually die?


* - My theory on time travel is that it is impossible to go back in time, based on a proof by contradiction.

Assume that it is possible. Then, at some point in the future, someone will discover it and go back in time. Someone from the future isn't likely to be ignored, and would be pretty well documented if they did anything at all. And we pretty clearly don't have any documentation or records of someone having done this. There you go.

The Enlightenment occurs 50 years later. Because of this, the Industrial Revolution begins without any idea of nature being governed by natural laws. The damage is catastrophic, as industry absorbs all the material it can. The lack of an idea of a universe governed by understandable forces beyond our control removes Locke's and Voltaire's basic premise that man has certain intrinsic value.

Without the middle ground available from a deeper understanding of creation that Newton espouses, the rift between the church and science deepens. This divide eventually leads to a titanic clash as the realities of the Industrial Revolution catch up with the world. This causes the Great Crusade, a religious war waged against science and those nations that stand by it. In short, Newton's death will cause- steampunk world wars.

For sake of this thread, we will assume that the actions of the Time Traveller rather than re-write history per-se, their actions enable them to enter a paralell dimension where their actions are 'meant to be' as a fixed point in history, if that makes sense?

Redbeard wrote:* - My theory on time travel is that it is impossible to go back in time, based on a proof by contradiction.

To me, there's three possibilities:
1. You can't go back in time to change the past, because you already did and it failed.
2. You can go back in time, change the past, and it destroys the future (and possibly you).
2. You can go back in time, change the past, and it creates a divergent alternate future in an alternate 'realm'.

I kinda go with 1, which seems to be what you're suggesting.

James Hogan had a great novel about this subject, called the Proteus Operation. It starts in the early 70's, America never joined WW2, and the US and Canada are only two nations not under the Axis thumb. Churchilll was never PM of Britian, which delayed their entry into the war. The US sends a team back in time to try to change history, and the first item to get Churchill into power. I read it in college and really enjoyed it.

1. Rent Primer
2. Watch with a pad of graph paper
3. Try to keep up with the time travel plotlines
4. ???
5. Profit


If you haven't heard of Primer it is an independent film made on a shoestring budget about two guys who invent a time travel device and all the complex issues in dealing with a realistic look at the implications. It's theory of course, but it takes it seriously.

Primer is a great movie. I've watched three or four times and find some new nuance every time.

I found a timeline for the film that is quite good. I post a pic but some may want to still see the movie and it gives away to much of the plot so I'll just put a link.

Timetravellinggoodness

Frazzled wrote:...more Jagermeister...

WHAT?!

DEATH TO NEWTON.

sA

Haven't you people seen that episode of Doctor Who where Rose saves her father from being hit by a car in the '80s and big flying dragon things appear to try and 'fix' the timeline by killing everyone on earth? Do you really want that to happen again?

sure, why not, it might be interesting.

Being munched on isn't on my to-do list, unfortunately.

Gitzbitah wrote:The Enlightenment occurs 50 years later. Because of this, the Industrial Revolution begins without any idea of nature being governed by natural laws. The damage is catastrophic, as industry absorbs all the material it can. The lack of an idea of a universe governed by understandable forces beyond our control removes Locke's and Voltaire's basic premise that man has certain intrinsic value.

Without the middle ground available from a deeper understanding of creation that Newton espouses, the rift between the church and science deepens. This divide eventually leads to a titanic clash as the realities of the Industrial Revolution catch up with the world. This causes the Great Crusade, a religious war waged against science and those nations that stand by it. In short, Newton's death will cause- steampunk world wars.

Probably this.

But I assume that if mankind ever sent anyone back in time we ourselves in the future seeing that doing so was a terrible terrible idea wills end someone back in time to kill the person who someone is planning to kill to 'right' something in the future.