Future...or Past? | Teen Ink

Future...or Past?

November 13, 2014
By GreenFish BRONZE, Singapore, Other
GreenFish BRONZE, Singapore, Other
4 articles 0 photos 2 comments

Favorite Quote:
"'Impossible' is a relative term." ~Michio Kaku


It was the year 8,000,002,415. Our universe continued to expand. Planetary objects hardly exist anymore. Less than one-tenth of the descendents of H. Sapiens, barely 80 billion, are still surviving in various galaxies that could still be manipulated to hold life forms. All human and other intelligent life's resources, which were vastly depleting, were focused on one and one goal only. To find a way to survive the possible end of the universe, whether by reversing the detioration of the universe, parallel dimensions, or finding energy sources big enough to fuel a time machine that is able to transport all life to a suggested timing after the Big Crunch and the birth of a new universe, or even escaping into black holes, which apparently contains more surprises than previously imagined.


Barely a century later, the crafting of a gigantic, even in our sense then, spaceship took place, with no less than 2 trillion compartments and 600 warp drives. It was built to travel to speeds of up to 3c, roughly 890 million meters a second. Most impressively, however, was the fact that its entire outer layer was made of Acromonoliumic, the strongest yet least dense element discovered in the entire universe. The project was successful. However, in the same sense, it was not entirely successful.


The spaceship was designed to withstand the end and the new beginning of a universe. However, due to some technical faults, the purpose turned out rather... different. It sent the occupants roughly 8,05,000,000 back into the past. 99.8 percent of the occupants died from the flight itself and 99.9 percent of the remaining suffered from critical mental damage, leading to a loss of memory and a overall decrease in IQ.


They say history repeats itself. So does the future, then.



Similar Articles

JOIN THE DISCUSSION

This article has 0 comments.