> > Seems like I remember a discussion about time travel and the possibilities of it ever happening.
> > I didn't get into the discussion, so here is my humble opinion:
> > I don't think its likely, but if it ever became possible it would only be travel to the past. The past is real. It happened. The future is not real. It hasn't happened. If it ever does happen it quickly becomes the past. It would have to be easier to travel to the past. I think I confused myself.
> > Howard
>
> I recently read a series of stories by Frederick Pohl called "The Time Patrol." In it there is an entire network of "Time Guardians" who work througout the different eras of time to protect the existence of the established timeline and the existence of the "superhumans" of the far future who set up the whole organization.
>
> I think it can be argued that the future is real. You say it hasn't happened. I say, it hasn't happened *yet*.
>
> I would think it would be easier to travel into the future. Travelling into the past would be a lot more dangerous, because you would be running the constant risk of causing something in the past that would ultimately wipe out "the present" as you know it. Going into the future *from* the past, you probably wouldn't think of it that way. (Although other time travellers from "upwards" of the point in the future that you are visiting might have strong feelings about your meddling with THEIR past!)
>
> Gri"I know the future. Well, some of it."shny

I don't know if I've ever said this, but I have thought that a "simple" way to travel forward in time would be to go into stasis. When you go into stasis, nothing in stasis is affected by time. When the door opens, the former occuapant has, in effect, traveled in time. Those who have seen the first episode of Red Dwarf know what I'm talking about, as *may* viewers of other SF shows and movies, and readers of SF books.

Nyper"Just by sittin' where you are, you're tavelin' in time..."old