Talk:Time travel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

replacement for wretched wording and markup[edit]

   A colleague (who didn't take the trouble to encourage constructive discussion by even saving -- for those who care who the colleague is or when they held forth -- the trouble of searching the edit history) did add to Time travel#Tourism in time the following comment markup (to which i've added meta-markup, on this talk page, trying to make the markup display in a more intuitively clear way here):

"This picture would explain why we haven't been over run [sic]
<!-- several people have tried to edit this, but note that it says "over run" rather than "overrun" in the original essay on Hawking's website, and direct quotes should match the original source so please don't change it -->
by tourists from the future."

   The colleague's concern for non-misrepresentation is praiseworthy, even tho the wording "have tried to edit" reeks too much of the Inquisition or the Klan, and the typographic travesty that is their solution may not even be appropriate for some critical edition of Hawking's works. Here -- leaving behind the pedants' concern about who (Hawking, an editor, a typesetter?) is responsible for the inappropriate internal space -- is an encyclopedia-appropriate version of the passage:

"This picture would explain why we haven't been [overrun] by tourists from the future."

It's literate, harmless, almost devoid of distraction, and not significantly better nor worse than

Stephen Hawking says that this picture would explain why our times haven't been overrun by "tourists from the future."{{cn|date=January 2015}}

--Jerzyt 04:21 & 07:05, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Removed bibliography section[edit]

I've removed the bibliography section since the article uses inline citations now, and has been that way for a long time. Below are all the sources from that section. Bright☀ 22:09, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Sleep, but not cryonics, in history section[edit]

Modern medical advances in cryonics have little to nothing to do with the history of the concept of time travel. Bright☀ 17:04, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Based on your edit comments, I assumed you were removing my edit because it referenced forward time travel at ordinary rates via unconsciousness rather than via some extraordinary means (such as wormholes), which seemed like a legitimate point of contention, which is why I removed the other reference to unconscious time travel. Are you saying that only historical references to time travel should be in that section or are you saying that only fictional references should be there? If the former, how old does something have to be for it to be considered history? There is a reference later in the section dated 1951. The content I added was dated 1962 and 1967. Should the section be renamed? Sparkie82 (tc) 02:31, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
The references explain why the historical references are significant (they're early, they have many parallels in myths, they are regarded in fiction as time travel). Modern advances like suspended animation and cryonics are a little more removed from time travel proper, and while they serve the same purpose in modern fiction as prolonged sleep did in ancient myths, most of the references treat them like a medical procedure, not necessarily a means of time travel. There was a medical section in the article but it was left unreferenced for so long that I removed it. Bright☀ 12:55, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Time travel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:47, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Bond paradox[edit]

Some persistent IP address editor is trying to re-title the grandfather paradox as the "Bond paradox". This name is taken from a piece of fanfiction on the internet. It is not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia since a self-published piece of fan fiction is not a reliable source, and even if it were, mentioning information that exists only in a single piece of fan fiction is undue weight. Editor, if you're reading this, please stop trying to insert what is presumably your fan fiction into Wikipedia. Bright☀ 10:46, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

We are all time travellers really![edit]

Hi, I think we are all time travellers. We are all from the 'past' right? as soon as you think, the time has passed. We are also moving forward in time, no one stop! The only thing is, some people may travel a little faster than others such as the people work on the airplane or outer space.

I have now a question if anyone can answer me. Please email me on I am not a physicist, if I swing my arm with speed which is attached to my body, should my arm be present in a different time as my body does? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sendittomequick (talkcontribs) 21:17, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I can't talk to your time travel question, but you should be able to just get messages through Wikipedia. It's usually a bad idea to put your email on Wikipedia, but it is not (to the best of my knowledge) against the rules. Nonetheless, I would suggest removing it from your comment.
Second, this space is really to talk about the article Time Travel, not to ask subject matter questions. You would probably be better off finding another forum to ask your question if you really need a response.
Finally, my apologies for deleting this comment originally - I made an error and thought it was the main article (where it would be inappropriate).
--KNHaw (talk) 21:25, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
This is discussed in the article, in the lead, "Forward time travel, outside the usual sense of the perception of time, is an extensively-observed phenomenon and well-understood within the framework of special relativity and general relativity", and more in-depth in the appropriate sections. Bright☀ 10:24, 25 August 2018 (UTC)