My Theory

[Heat]

I posted this in another thread, but it sparked an idea, I wanted to repost it here and see what people think.

My theory is basically about the extremity of which a general public will accept a change of a previously known concept instantaneously, or to what extent of change can take place at one point in history.



Full post leading up:

I don't think you can ever go in to the future, or past and give any useful information, unless it's instructions.


If you went to the middle ages and said "In the future, most people will be non-religious, we will have computational devices and a worldwide communication network called "internet"

They wouldn't believe it. In fact, almost anything you can think of, if just using word won't accomplish much except in rare circumstances like math equations such as "E=MC2" where you may not physically demonstrate, but can be demonstrated by people who are given the information and in that case speed up the process of advancement.

Otherwise, I really think the most effective thing you could do, if you went back to the middle ages, would be to demonstrate something.

For instance, if I were very educated on how to build computers, and could build them. If I went to the past, I would draw a diagram, and hope they could get me tools, and at least attempt to create a computer but would still run in to conflict with most parts not being developed.


I do not think you can effectively accomplish anything or change history for the better with something as small as a sentence, or paragraph. It's due to the fact that the default position is to not believe something until proven, and if you compare any time period to another the larger the gap in between the time periods, the more extreme and distant your views become, and the less likely someone is to believe.

My theory:

The longer time period gap there is from when the original idea was developed, the less amount it is able to change instantaneously. That all amount of change in ideas and theories over time are relative to the time between the originated concept and attempt to change. The longer an original idea goes without change, the more micro changes are needed over time in order to reach the end goal of a new accepted changed view of that idea.



What are your opinions? I think that generally this is pretty accurate.