Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 28, 2024, 7:53 pm

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
My Theory
#1
My Theory
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:



Quote: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.
Which is better:
To die with ignorance, or to live with intelligence?

Truth doesn't accommodate to personal opinions.
The choice is yours. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is God and there is man, it's only a matter of who created whom

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The more questions you ask, the more you realize that disagreement is inevitable, and communication of this disagreement, irrelevant.
Reply
#2
RE: My Theory
Not necessarily.
The valve transistor was the norm for centuries.
Overnight the solid state transistor was invented (by a lab tech at Yamaha?) and changed the world overnight.

This may not be a good example to what you're alluding to though.
No God, No fear.
Know God, Know fear.
Reply
#3
RE: My Theory
(November 23, 2015 at 12:51 am)ignoramus Wrote: Not necessarily.
The valve transistor was the norm for centuries.
Overnight the solid state transistor was invented (by a lab tech at Yamaha?) and changed the world overnight.

This may not be a good example to what you're alluding to though.
That's a pretty small change at first glance imo, i was thinking on a much larger scale.

This thread is also a bit in relation to the other thread's question "What knowledge would you give if you went back to the middle ages"


My logic on this is that if you imagine going back in to any time period, with the same information you plan on providing, the longer you go, the more extreme it becomes, and the less likely acceptance is.
Which is better:
To die with ignorance, or to live with intelligence?

Truth doesn't accommodate to personal opinions.
The choice is yours. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is God and there is man, it's only a matter of who created whom

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The more questions you ask, the more you realize that disagreement is inevitable, and communication of this disagreement, irrelevant.
Reply
#4
RE: My Theory
Does anyone think we have progressed enough technologically to be able to comprehend any new hitech which is given to us by someone from 500 in our future.

Eg: if a scientist came back with the theory and schematics of warp drive technology.
What would stop us from making this from scratch?

We have the knowhow and technology to make the tooling for almost anything these days.
The same can't be said for medieval times.
No God, No fear.
Know God, Know fear.
Reply





Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)