NationStates Jolt Archive

Here is a copy of my proposal to the UN. Its about time that we step up to the plate and think about our future by traveling there, rather than our past.

Back to the Present
A resolution to improve world security by boosting police and military budgets.


Category: International Security
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: The Uncommon Poor

Description: In an attempt to create a more perfect Union of Nations:

POINTING OUT the dangers of time travel,

RECOGNIZING the infinite rise in technological advancement moving towards the future and,

DESIRING to continue this technological advancement safely for generation upon generation to come however,

DEEPLY CONCERNED with the downfalls of time travel in the reverse direction which has the potential to destroy our universe. By traveling to the past, any changes we make can upset the space-time continuum which in essance can create an infinite paradox situation. This creates a time loop which will be lived forever, and life as we know it will have ended.

FURTHER RECOGNIZING the fact that time travel to the future is harmless pointing out the fact that by altering the future from someplace in the future does not do anything to the past, and can be changed by simply returning to the present and living your normal life.

1. DEFINES time travel in the reverse direction as the ability to relive past events, going against the regular flow of time.

2. EMPHASIZES that the UN do something about this problem before it actually becomes a problem.

3. REITERATING the fact that this could mean the Destruction of the Universe.

4. OUTLAWING any form of time travel in the reverse direction by any means necessary.

I trust that the well respected members of this United Nations will see to it that time travel in the reverse direction be outlawed.

Approvals: 0

Status: Lacking Support (requires 112 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Mon Feb 26 2007

http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g93/JamieNesci/Smile%20Emos/beam.gif

Uh...when did this become a problem and why should the UN waste time on this? Genuine questions.

OOC: LOL. You know, one school of thought about traveling to the past is that any changes you make will have already been made. So, if I go back in time and kill someone, then that person was already dead at that time before I went back in time to kill them. By going back in time, I'm merely ensuring that what already happened will happen. I think.

*goes to get a tylenol*

Whilst the legislation is mostly soundish, I don't much like the sound of your point 3. "...this could mean the destruction of the universe" doesn't sound very eloquent. "What" could mean the destruction of the universe? Furthermore, "I trust that the well respected members of this United Nations will see to it that time travel in the reverse direction be outlawed" is unnecessary. You shouldn't refer to yourself in a Resolution, and the statement is essentially a summarization of the last four relatively short points.

Finally, my analysis of the potential of this proposal. I do not forsee this as passing, and doubt it will even reach quorum. I believe that most people will write it off as a joke or BS without actually reading it, and it's the idiotic mass of people who don't read things that has to be swayed for a thing to pass. Nice try, though. I don't recognize your name. Is this your first proposal?

(and if you're a puppet, then pfft.)

Looks to me like someone's been watching Back to the Future too much lately.

Timothy Schmidt
Bob Flibble's PA

Yes this is my first propasal to th UN. That explains the fact that I didnt even notice I used "I" in my closing...thank you for pointing that out. I have been watching alittle to much Back to the Future, but I do believe that there could be problems in the future if we allow ourselves to change the past. It probably was too strong of an arguement to say that it could mean the destruction of the universe, but all I was trying to say was that this has the potential to be a big problem in the future.

To answer your questions Karmicara, the problem isnt a problem yet. It is explained as a future problem which must be assessed now to ensure nothing will happen later. I believe that the UN deals enough with problems facing us today, like the threat of nuclear war and terrorism, and I only hoped to express my concerns for other aspects of technological advancement, which the UN should be willing to look at.

on another note, that theory of which you speak is known as fixed time theory, where even though you go back to get something accomplished, you cant because you will be stopped. In present, you have already traveled back in time to do something, and been stopped making things the way they are...

Very interesting

I still don't think that this is something that we should be legislating on.

Ok, I'm not saying you should think so, I was just answering some questions I was posed. Its fine with me, I am aware that many people might not think we need legislation on something like this. It doesnt mean it hurts to try. Thank you for the posts though.

We're not convinced we should be legislating on this, either. But we might be convinced if somebody tried hard enough. At least the subject's interesting and the representative of The Uncommon Poor did a pretty good job of using the legislative format. Not bad at all for a new member's first effort.

Travilia E. Thwerdock
Ambassador to the United Nations

I will say that for your first proposal, it isn't bad. With that, you have achieved something that most first time proposal writers don't. Congratulations.

Thank you

Oh boy, we're rogered, existing as we do in a temporal portal...

:confused: Either I'm confused or your'e wrong. Personally I think it is the latter. :p

"FURTHER RECOGNIZING the fact that time travel to the future is harmless pointing out the fact that by altering the future from someplace in the future does not do anything to the past, and can be changed by simply returning to the present and living your normal life."

Isn't "returning to the present" actually traveling to the past from the perspective of the future?

Besides we have already defined the multiverse in UN resolution. Travel backwards in time merely moves one to a parallel space dimension that does not cause temporal paradoxes. There's a plethora of universes out there you know. Somehow it all works. TRUST US.

It is times like these I'm glad Tzorsland has left the UN. I have been meddling in time for centuries. Believe me when I say the universe hasn't been destroyed as a result. It's very flexable, even in the face of outright paradoxes. (My favorite song is "I'm my own grandpa.")

http://pic40.picturetrail.com/VOL291/1756382/5512569/175835520.jpg

Great point, but looking from the present point of view, by traveling to the future, you are changing things that are bound to change anyway. Keeping your eye on the present as a point of view, you must return to the present at some point, which isnt the same as traveling to the past which has already happened and then traveling to a different present which may not even exist if my theory is correct. It is the fact taht we know not what harm we can do if we have the abilty to travel back in time, that we must take a closer look at it and protect ourselves.

"I strongly suspect thinking about this would exacerbate my already delicately throbbing headache, so I'll defer to our scientific advisor. I will note though I like this idea, because I never, ever want to relive last night."

George sat down meekly, clutching a wet flannel to his forehead. Samantha looked at him askance. "I'm not a physicist! I don't know anything about time travel."

She stood up uncertainly. "Uh...ladies and gentlemen...I rise, not in support of the motion...but certainly in appreciation of it. It's a well-drafted document by my estimation, and it has a clear, precise aim that it sets out to accomplish."

"I don't think I can recommend my nation support this, simply because we are not convinced of the mechanics of time travel. But perhaps some sort of 'temporal accord' could be reached; even if it were not of wide applicability, it could do little harm."

She sat down nervously. George leaned across.

"Star Trek?"

"Yep."

I think this may be straying a little to far from the assumed norm for the UN. I fear that opening the door to Proposals like this will be opening the proverbial can of worms, leading to all sorts of Sci-Fi and Fantasy (Protection of Dragons Act?) Proposals. I'm not sure I want to walk down that road.

Besides, any sort of temporal Proposal would do better to focus on the meddling itself, as opposed to simply travelling. I mean, if this passed, where would this leave Peabody and Sherman?

We feel that there is a need for a presentation on the current understanding of knowledge as regards temporal translation, and which theories on the nature of time can be definitively ruled out, before we can make any sensible decision on this proposal, though we applaud its intent. In addition we would observe that the current definition of time travel in clause 1 would appear to cover the act of remembering as well as physical, mental or spiritual travel to other temporal locations, which we are certain was not the intention of the author.

I think this may be straying a little to far from the assumed norm for the UN. I fear that opening the door to Proposals like this will be opening the proverbial can of worms, leading to all sorts of Sci-Fi and Fantasy (Protection of Dragons Act?) Proposals. I'm not sure I want to walk down that road.

I think the protection of dragons act is not a threat because we have already killed the protection of XYZ acts such as whales and all agree that such resolutions that taget specific animals are simply wrong.

Not that I want to say "I told you so," but when I tried to complain about that resolution that mentioned the multiverse you all told me to shut the (curse word) up. I warned you then the consequences and this is it!

Oddly enough it's not killing cat girls. It's wierd science but not bad science.

"A waste of a proposal. Not worth the attention of the NationStates United Nations. This type of thing should be left to the Nations that it involves."

Random Shazbotdom UN Understudy

Has anyone stopped to considered the basic problem with this bill. In accordance with the Theory of Relativity its impossible to go back in time so this will never be a problem. According to physics time and space are the same. Going into the future is accomplished by travelling fast. In order to go back in time one would have to travel faster than the speed of light. The problem there is that the closer you come to the speed of light the more energy you need to accelerate. According to E=MC2(squared) the huge amounts of energy are converted to mass. So the more energy you use to accelerate the more of it that is converted to mass so you need even more energy to accelerate the increased mass. Therefore infinate energy is needed to accelerate the infinate mass that is accumulated approaching the speed of light (infinate speed). This is never going to be a problem.

Personally, I think this proposal is a welcome change from the usual. But I think it's too far ahead of its time (perhaps literally). Certainly, it's beyond the understanding of a poor dinosaur like me.

In accordance with the Theory of Relativity its impossible to go back in time so this will never be a problem.

:confused: According to my relativity textbooks any super-luminial particle is capable of moving backwards in time according to some relativistic time frame. Jumping the light barrier is difficult due to the increasing mass problem. Classical relativity doesn't take into consideration the massive fun one can have with quantum mechanics; fermions, bosons, and tachyons.

More oddly enough the classic particle / anti-particle theory is also explained by anti-particles being particles traveling backwards in time. Every virtual particle is in effect a temporal paradox on the quantum level.

Ok my apologies. Obviously I wasnt delving into the Theory of Relativity as much as you did nor could I without actually looking it up. But i would still hope that you would agree with me that the prospect of designing a craft that was able to travel back in time is at present or the near future impossible.

According to my relativity textbooks any super-luminial particle is capable of moving backwards in time according to some relativistic time frame.

And as for this would you care to explain this a wee bit for my own interest?

OOC: Please keep in mind that, despite the usually sensible (HA!) nature of proceedings here, NationStates is NOT Real Life (TM). I know of one nation that is sort of like Doctor Who, traveling wherever and whenever they want, and things like that. Time travel is not necessarily impossible in the realm of NationStates.

The Wolf Guardians;12369011']OOC: Please keep in mind that, despite the usually sensible (HA!) nature of proceedings here, NationStates is NOT Real Life (TM). I know of one nation that is sort of like Doctor Who, traveling wherever and whenever they want, and things like that. Time travel is not necessarily impossible in the realm of NationStates.

Not to mention that the Doctor himself has made a couple of appearances in the Stranger's Bar.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

I trust this would have no deleterious effect on security in the Strangers' Bar?

I am unsure what technology Acme Industries employs in the "Timeline Transmogrifier" that was installed to ensure no assassinations were possible in the Bar.

If it's merely a switch to a timeline in which the event didn't take place, that's fine; but if, as I suspect, it takes the participants back in time to a few seconds before the event, allowing it to be thwarted, then, Houston, we have a problem.

With pure relativity, time travel is impossible. We know now that pure relativity is not true (thank you quantum theory). If wormholes exist, backwards time travel is possible.

I do not think the UN should legislate on time travel as:
1. It may not be possible
2. Nobody knows exactly how it would work

We concur that the UN should not legislate on time travel yet. We for one feel under-educated on the subject, which is why we asked for a summary of what is known concerning the field. If it seems possible or likely that there is a problem, then we would suggest that the U.N. is the only body that can sensibly legislate on the subject, it being a problem for all.

1. It may not be possibleWhat? Of course it's possible! Our entire tourism industry is based on time travel!

All OOC: Looks to me like someone's been watching Back to the Future too much lately.

Timothy Schmidt
Bob Flibble's PA

They aired all three of them on ABC Family over the weekend. :rolleyes:

It's wierd science but not bad science.

Did someone say "Weird Science"?

http://www.johnvidas.com/archives/weird%20science.bmp

All OOC:

They aired all three of them on ABC Family over the weekend. :rolleyes:

OOC: I know, I say the ads for it.