Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
It's funny.  Laugh. Science

Time Travelers' Convention 836

usermilk writes "Some folks at MIT are holding a time-travelers' convention. The idea is to make it so famous and so widely-known that even thousands of years in the future, people will still know exactly when and where this time-traveler convention went down, and will all come travel to it at some point in their illustrious time-traveling careers. For those interested in attending, it's on May 7, 2005, 10:00pm EDT (08 May 2005 02:00:00 UTC) in the East Campus Courtyard at MIT. 42:21:36.025N, 71:05:16.332W (42.360007,-071.087870 in decimal degrees)."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Time Travelers' Convention

Comments Filter:
  • Re:Ahh... (Score:5, Informative)

    by woah ( 781250 ) on Sunday May 01, 2005 @07:20PM (#12402088)
    John Titor. []

    ...a fun read.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 01, 2005 @08:17PM (#12402574)
  • Re:zerg (Score:5, Informative)

    by fprefect ( 14608 ) on Sunday May 01, 2005 @08:52PM (#12402816)
    There are 2 things involved in 4-dimensional translocation:

    -- Reaching the exact coordinates at the right instant, considering rotation and revolution of the planet, solar system, and galaxy.

    -- Matching the velocity of that location (and timeframe) exactly.

    It's not only useless to appear at the right instant in the right room if your body doesn't exactly match the inertial frame -- it would be fatal. Forgetting to account for just the earth's revolution around the sun would slam the traveller against the wall at 30km/sec.
  • Re:Hmmm.... (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 01, 2005 @09:21PM (#12403027)
    Doh! Free will is an illusion.

    These kind of blanket "I know everything" comments make me cringe. Just because you quote a 300 year old philospher does not make it so. And invoking Homer Simpson does not help your cause.

    as a matter of definition
    There are very few definitions in the world of phiolpsphy and free will is certainly not one of them.

    every process is either deterministic or random

    Are not all things that happen in life, the universe and everything built upon previous events? And if this is the case, is there not a chain of causality (from Buddist tradition) which denotes a non random behavior to all things (psedo-random)? Existentialist thought suggests that we have some sort of nebulous/public "free will" (i.e.- we're all in this together), ala Martin Heidegger's [] Das Eine.

    Not that this is necessarily correct, mind you. That's the beauty of philosophy.. it's a securlar "religion"(at least the non religious part:)).

    Please refrain from assuming that any methaphysical subject is without question, correct, in the future.. at least giving better arguments than "Doh! Free will is an illusion."... because some old dead guy says so... Or at least giving some credence to you "argument". Try not to assume everything your professors harp on is true.

    Just my thoughts.

  • Read "The End of Eternity" by Asimov... he also alludes to the episode in other books.
  • by glwtta ( 532858 ) on Monday May 02, 2005 @01:44AM (#12404588) Homepage
    I'd rather hear both sides and be free to make my own choices and decisions. If the idea of free speech worries you, then you worry me.

    This has nothing to do with free speech (or even Free Speech) whatsoever. Free speech guarantees your right to hold and voice an opinion, unmolested by the powers that be. This concept is often warped into the notion that it obviates the need to defend such an opinion, or that merely holding it requires others to recognize it as valid.

    Nobody is even remotely pondering curtailing the "Titorites"' rights to self expression. What I have a problem with is that the editors of the particular article, in their treatment of the subject matter are giving far too much credence to this particular crackpot theory. They do this in the laudible pursuit of neutrality, but in this case that leads to a product that reflects negatively on the project as a whole.

    Free speech does not mean the abandonment of objective reasoning. Neutral point of view does not mean that wikipedia editors should parrot everything they read on the internet.

    Oh and thank you for providing a link to the article on free speech - how deliciously patronizing.

  • Not true... (Score:3, Informative)

    by raehl ( 609729 ) <raehl311 AT yahoo DOT com> on Monday May 02, 2005 @01:57AM (#12404654) Homepage
    would slam the traveller against the wall at 30km/sec

    The wall slams into the traveller.
  • by Ron Harwood ( 136613 ) <harwoodr&linux,ca> on Monday May 02, 2005 @08:19AM (#12405804) Homepage Journal
    Jesus is greek for Joshua... apparently Jesus's actual name... go fig - as the catholic church originally used greek as their official language until Pope Victor I [] changed it to latin (his native language).

    BTW, if you want good alternate history regarding Jesus - I highly recommend Chrisopher Moore's "Lamb: The Gospel According to Biff, Christ's Childhood Pal".
  • Re:Hmmm.... (Score:3, Informative)

    by AKAImBatman ( 238306 ) * <akaimbatman&gmail,com> on Monday May 02, 2005 @09:00AM (#12406022) Homepage Journal
    tachyons , which (if they exist

    They don't. Tachyons were a weirdness created by some of the early attempts at String Theory. Later work at correcting the mathematical holes in the theory eliminated the possibility of tachyons.
  • by Adelbert ( 873575 ) on Monday May 02, 2005 @12:34PM (#12408734) Journal
    Let's assume for one moment that time travel is possible, and that's its discovered by people at some indeterminate point in the future (or past... ). Obviously time travellers don't interact with us. I haven't seen Hitler be assassinated recently... So either time travellers have some code of ethics that prevents them from changing history, or the Government heavily regulates time travel, or for some other reason interaction is impossible. Whatever, no-one will turn up to this party. Sounds like a lot of parties at MIT.
  • Re:Temporal Cold War (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 02, 2005 @07:12PM (#12414146)
    "This is where it started. A couple of Sullibans attended (they really are party animals once you get to know them), but unfortunatley one present-time Enterprise fan thought they were just other geeks in a costume and poured his beer over their heads."

    Dude, nobody watches TREK anymore. If you are going to reference *The Time War,* then reference the proper one on a television series that people actually are watching. DOCTOR WHO.

    Trek is dead, Jim.

"For a male and female to live continuously together is... biologically speaking, an extremely unnatural condition." -- Robert Briffault