Re: If you could send a message back in time to yourself in high school,what would it
Not at all because the witnesses were from 1930. Their actions may change Kirks history, but our future timeline is not yet determined except when viewed from the absolute frame of reference known as cinema.The fact that there were witnesses that were aware of that selfless act, combined with the witnesses actually acting on what they witnessed just proves the Temporal Prime Directive is nothing more than a paper tiger.
Only if the TPD is not observed.If time travel exists, irreversible interference into the past becomes unavoidable.
Not yet... Talk to me in about a century.In fact, thanks to Spock's and the Romulan Nero's interference into the future past, the Jean-Luc Picard timeline may not even exist in any viable future anymore. Spock may have returned things as close as possible to their original state, but both Kirk and Spock have had their young adult years changed in the ways that change them ever so slightly from the characters they were in the original series.
One of my favorite thought experiments from physics is described by Igor Novikov, in The Future of Spacetime. He describe a game of billiards in which a ball entering a certain pocket will enter a time machine, and then emerge in such a way that it interferes with its own path so as to prevent the ball from entering the pocket first place. Were the ball's path changed so that it misses the pocket, we would have a paradox. But it is found that while the ball may be deflected by its future self, it cannot be deflected enough to miss the pocket. THAT is an amazing result, even for a thought experiment.Either altering the past creates a butterfly effect where minor changes become amplified by time and we have to wait for a whole new series of TV series and movies to find out what happens, or there's a "pressure" that makes a certain stream of reality more likely regardless of small deviations one way or the other, in which case the original series, TNG, etc all still apply. (If the latter, then those suggesting they wouldn't listen to a message from their future selves are probably the more realistic of us.)
Edit: The latter being a more natural and desirable state was the premise of Isaac Asimov's "The End of Eternity" (about the only time travel book I've ever really liked). One always had to be very careful to keep any changes to the time line to a bare minimum or else risk having the change spiral out of control into a whole new unpredictable future. By the way, this is supposed to be made into a http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118002742.html?categoryid=1237&cs=1 [Broken].
Last edited by a moderator: