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.

Comments

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....

Watching The Hours

A Twitter friend named Paula has asked for folks to submit ideas for a blog-a-thon about what we think will be the classic films of the future. In other words, what relatively recent movies (namely, from the 21st century), do we think will be considered classics in the decades to come, possibly airing on such venerable stations as Turner Classic Movies ? While a number of films come to mind for such a category, one in particular stood out from the rest, and thus is my entry for Paula's blog-a-thon.

She's Madonna

Today we're going to talk about something very important. We're going to talk about Madonna. "Madge," as she's affectionately known around the gay scene, has been making music for over thirty years. I grew up with her songs, many of them pop classics. In recent years, it can be arguably said that her popularity has waned a bit. During the past decade, Madonna has put out seventeen singles. Of those, three have charted in the US Top 40. Ten Failed to chart at all on the Billboard Hot 100. We now have at least one possibility offered as to why Madge's chart power is waning: Ageism. At least, that's what Diplo (just, Diplo), a producer of some of the tracks off her latest album, thinks . I know it's difficult to be objective about something you've worked on -- whether you were the producer or the artist -- but, as a listener/fan, I have to say that Madonna's most recent work has simply not been that good. Still, we'll hear what