It is possible to jump back a minute though - I’ll show you… scroil up a bit.
OK, so there’s a time machine - is the time traveler in a time shield?
Whatever the math, the future beyond 100 years does not contain the time traveler.
So you’re saying that there may exist a world in which the “Many worlds” theory is false?
Well, it doesn’t if the traveler doesn’t go there. But it’s really easy to go there-- Why wouldn’t he?
It looks like Cartooniverse of 25 and a half hours ago is now proven wrong, because here we are now in his future, and it most certainly does exist.
A scientist in the linked article uses this phrase but there is no explanation. There is a link to the abstract of the published paper but you must pay to get the full article.
I think in this context it means that [the authors believe that] there is a mathematical model that shows that this sort of time travel is possible, but that the technology to implement it is not available and maybe even infeasible.
It is mathematically possible to accelerate a school bus to 0.999c but it ain’t never gonna happen.
What did the OP do to get banned? It was only his second post.
It’s a drawback if you have friends and family that you would want to see again.
Less a drawback if the point is to outlive your enemies.
Not if I put an opaque barrier between you and the star.
If time travel is possible, where are they?
IANA Mod and I haven’t checked but it looks like he was spamming a website, particularly if he was posting the same messages across multiple boards.
Or maybe he was an unauthorized time traveller and **Chronos **is a Time Cop. It would certainly explain the name.
Nobody has ever mentioned the possibility that I’m a Time Cop.
And if they have, then I’ll make sure that nobody has ever mentioned it.
Understood?
IAAlsoNAM, but this would be my guess. Both the consistent posting of pointers back to that particular “news aggregator” clickbait factory, and the fact he never engaged again after OP, seem to my un-moderator eyes to be spam hallmarks.
The fact he did it slowly is no defense.
(The fact that the target spammed website was serving up old garbage is neither here nor there, but IMHO did no favors.)
Nota bene: In my limited experience, no moderator will discuss the reasons for the banning ex cathedra in an open forum, not even in ATMB. If anyone is sincerely curious, I believe a private message is the way to go. (Again, not a moderator, but relaying my own experience and recollection.)
In our hearts, I think we all knew this already. It explains a lot, if you think about it.
I don’t understand this criticism, which may well be my own failing. Regarding spacetime as a closed timelike curve does not imply that it is acausal (cite 1, cite 2). If that were so, we would not have the “grandfather paradox”, and if we speak of the grandfather paradox, then ISTM that we admit to a set of initial conditions at some past time. I’m simply suggesting that we need not engage in something so drastic as killing our own grandfather to create a causality paradox, but that any perturbation of those conditions whatsoever, however small, would lead to an evolution of circumstances described by chaos theory, and so to a different future.
Spacetimes can be categorized by causality conditions, three of which are:
Chronological: no closed timelike curves
Causal: no closed causal curves
Globally hyperbolic: admits a set of global initial conditions whose evolution describes the spacetime.
If a spacetime is globally hyperbolic, then it is causal and if it is causal it is chronological. Therefore being able to talk about (global) initial conditions precludes the existence of timelike curves. You can have partial initial conditions even when there are CTCs, but the reason their evolution does not describe the spacetime is because there is additional information contained in the CTCs.
Funny, I always imagined you were a member of the Campaign for Real Time.
Warren Buffet is here from the future making investments to become the world’s third richest man.
Jules Verne traveled back in time to 1863 and wrote Paris in the Twentieth Century, predicting air conditioning, TV, and sort-of the Internet. Then he wrote From the Earth to the Moon describing the Apollo flight to the moon.
Leonardo da Vinci traveled back in time to the 1400s to invent the helicopter before there was technology to build one.
Sigh. Take any simple graph. You can model that graph with any number of equations. By the time you get to equations with 8th or so order coefficients, you can probably make your model go through every point. Your model may be worthless for anything off the edge of the graph.
Take our observations about reality. All physics is is a model. It is incomplete and things like the conditions for time travel are really, really off the edge of the graph. So our models are unlikely to be correct. (given the current modern theory of physics is pretty solid and predictive I say unlikely, but it *could *be correct)
Or it could simply be that no possible way to make negative energy or mass exists. None, reality doesn’t have it.
I just find the nearest 0 and divide by it. It works every time.
Nah, Chronos was the God of time until Sam Winchester came along.
it’s amusing to me to see how much time has been spent trying to theorize things which began as little more than convenient ways to move along the plots of sci-fi works.
“I could come back a thousand times… and see her die a thousand ways.”
“You built your time machine because of Emma’s death. If she had lived, it would never have existed, so how could you use your machine to go back and save her? You are the inescapable result of your tragedy, just as I am the inescapable result of you.”
Firstly there is no evidence that we have free will and actually several things that seem to go against it.
But secondly, and what I want to focus on is: why do you suppose free will would preclude time travel? After all, you’re travelling forwards in time right now at 1 second per second, so “moving through time” and “free will” must necessarily not be inconsistent.
Regular dopers will know that my view on free will is that the concept itself is incoherent, and the sentence “There is no free will” is simply meaningless.
And here, the assertion that time travel must be incompatible with free will, and the fact many posters seemed to implicitly agree, illustrates just what I’m talking about. I think “free will” has some vague notion of freedom in people’s minds, and many assert this or that depends on free will, while never actually defining clearly what it is.