Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > rec.arts.sf.written > #461193 > unrolled thread
| Started by | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-12-30 11:19 -0800 |
| Last post | 2017-01-01 20:45 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 80 — 16 participants |
Back to article view | Back to rec.arts.sf.written
Time Travel Is Not Possible The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-12-30 11:19 -0800
Re: Time Travel Is Not Possible The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-12-30 13:13 -0800
Re: Time Travel Is Not Possible The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-12-30 13:20 -0800
Re: Time Travel Is Not Possible Don Kuenz <g@crcomp.net> - 2016-12-30 21:30 +0000
Re: Time Travel Is Not Possible Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2016-12-30 15:24 -0700
Re: Time Travel Is Not Possible The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-12-30 20:25 -0800
Re: Time Travel Is Not Possible The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-12-30 20:28 -0800
Re: Time Travel Is Not Possible Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-12-31 13:03 +1100
How to travel in time Don Kuenz <g@crcomp.net> - 2016-12-31 02:38 +0000
Re: How to travel in time William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> - 2017-01-01 20:48 -0800
Re: How to travel in time Cryptoengineer <treifamily@gmail.com> - 2017-01-02 00:02 -0600
Re: How to travel in time Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> - 2017-01-02 13:02 -0800
Re: Time Travel Is Not Possible The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-12-30 20:21 -0800
Re: Time Travel Is Not Possible Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-12-31 15:32 +1100
Re: Time Travel Is Not Possible The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-12-30 23:05 -0800
Re: Time Travel Is Not Possible Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-12-31 19:07 +1100
Re: Time Travel Is Not Possible The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-12-31 10:51 -0800
Re: Time Travel Is Not Possible Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-01-01 11:44 +1100
Re: Time Travel Is Not Possible The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-12-31 17:26 -0800
Re: Time Travel Is Not Possible Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-01-01 13:10 +1100
Re: Time Travel Is Not Possible Yuri Kretin <invlaid@invalid.com> - 2017-01-01 11:18 -0600
Re: Time Travel Is Not Possible The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-01-01 16:48 -0800
Re: Time Travel Is Not Possible Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-01-02 12:03 +1100
Re: Time Travel Is Not Possible The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-01-01 21:07 -0800
Re: Time Travel Is Not Possible Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-01-02 16:25 +1100
Re: Time Travel Is Not Possible The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-01-02 10:19 -0800
Re: Time Travel Is Not Possible Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-01-03 14:54 +1100
Re: Time Travel Is Not Possible The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-01-03 21:18 -0800
Re: Time Travel Is Not Possible Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-01-04 16:45 +1100
Re: Time Travel Is Not Possible The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-01-03 21:53 -0800
Re: Time Travel Is Not Possible The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-01-05 11:38 -0800
Re: Time Travel Is Not Possible Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-01-06 11:18 +1100
Re: Time Travel Is Not Possible Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2017-01-05 16:45 -0700
Re: Time Travel Is Not Possible The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-01-05 17:50 -0800
Re: Time Travel Is Not Possible Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-01-06 13:29 +1100
Re: Time Travel Is Not Possible The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-01-06 09:13 -0800
Re: Time Travel Is Not Possible Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-01-07 11:57 +1100
Re: Time Travel Is Not Possible Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-01-10 11:34 +1100
Re: Time Travel Is Not Possible The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-01-10 09:14 -0800
Re: Re: Time Travel Is Not Possible Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> - 2017-01-10 17:12 -0500
Re: Time Travel Is Not Possible Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-01-11 22:40 +1100
Re: Time Travel Is Not Possible Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-01-06 00:37 -0800
Re: Time Travel Is Not Possible The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-01-06 09:06 -0800
Re: Time Travel Is Not Possible Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2017-01-06 09:18 -0700
Re: Time Travel Is Not Possible The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-01-06 09:24 -0800
Re: Time Travel Is Not Possible Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2017-01-06 10:00 -0700
Gutless whining (was Re: Time Travel Is Not Possible Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-01-06 09:50 -0800
Re: Gutless whining (was Re: Time Travel Is Not Possible Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2017-01-06 10:00 -0700
Re: Time Travel Is Not Possible Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2017-01-08 09:11 -0700
Re: Time Travel Is Not Possible Cryptoengineer <treifamily@gmail.com> - 2017-01-08 11:55 -0600
Re: Time Travel Is Not Possible wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2017-02-04 10:12 -0500
Re: Time Travel Is Not Possible nance@math.ohio-state.edu (Anthony Nance) - 2017-02-06 13:27 +0000
Re: Re: Time Travel Is Not Possible Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> - 2017-01-07 21:43 -0500
Re: Time Travel Is Not Possible Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2017-01-05 16:44 -0700
Re: Time Travel Is Not Possible wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2016-12-31 12:56 -0500
Re: Time Travel Is Not Possible "Michael R N Dolbear" <me@privacy.net> - 2017-01-01 15:07 +0000
Re: Time Travel Is Not Possible The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-01-01 16:50 -0800
Re: Time Travel Is Not Possible The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-01-01 16:52 -0800
Re: Time Travel Is Not Possible Hägar <hsahm@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-31 11:21 -0800
Re: Time Travel Is Not Possible Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> - 2017-01-01 16:00 -0800
Re: Time Travel Is Not Possible Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2017-01-01 23:20 -0700
Re: Time Travel Is Not Possible Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> - 2017-01-01 19:15 -0500
Re: Time Travel Is Not Possible The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-01-01 16:56 -0800
Re: Time Travel Is Not Possible Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-01-02 12:14 +1100
Re: Time Travel Is Not Possible The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-01-10 09:29 -0800
Re: Re: Time Travel Is Not Possible Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> - 2017-01-10 14:04 -0500
Re: Re: Time Travel Is Not Possible Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2017-01-10 11:19 -0700
Re: Time Travel Is Not Possible The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-01-11 23:21 -0800
Re: Time Travel Is Not Possible Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-01-12 15:11 +0000
Re: Time Travel Is Not Possible The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-01-12 08:55 -0800
Re: Time Travel Is Not Possible Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-01-12 22:09 +0000
Re: Time Travel Is Not Possible The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-01-13 10:39 -0800
Re: Time Travel Is Not Possible Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-01-13 22:37 +0000
Re: Time Travel Is Not Possible The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-01-13 22:41 -0800
Re: Time Travel Is Not Possible The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-01-13 23:00 -0800
Re: Time Travel Is Not Possible Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-01-14 15:25 +0000
Re: Time Travel Is Not Possible The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-01-14 10:16 -0800
Re: Time Travel Is Not Possible Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-01-14 21:28 +0000
Re: Time Travel Is Not Possible The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-01-13 23:44 -0800
Re: Re: Time Travel Is Not Possible Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> - 2017-01-01 20:45 -0500
Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 Next page →
| From | Yuri Kretin <invlaid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-01 11:18 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o4bdl9$nts$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #461344 |
On 12/31/2016 8:10 PM, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 1/01/2017 12:26 PM, The Starmaker wrote: >> Sylvia Else wrote: >> >> >> Most girls don't even think like you do... >> > > Most people don't. It's a cross I have to bear. > > Sylvia. Starfarter does'nt know how he thinks at all, much less "most girls" for sure.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-01 16:48 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <5869A346.1C8@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #461342 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > Sylvia Else wrote: > > > > On 1/01/2017 5:51 AM, The Starmaker wrote: > > > Sylvia Else wrote: > > >> > > >> On 31/12/2016 6:05 PM, The Starmaker wrote: > > >>> Sylvia Else wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>> On 31/12/2016 3:21 PM, The Starmaker wrote: > > >>>>> Sylvia Else wrote: > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> On 31/12/2016 6:19 AM, The Starmaker wrote: > > >>>>>>> lets say you travel back in time in a time machine and your > > >>>>>>> time machine lands on your grandfather and kills him... > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Time Travel Is Not Possible. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Any answers you give saying time travel is possible would > > >>>>>>> be...absurd answers. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> i don't want to hear absurd answers like you come back in > > >>>>>>> unproven paralell universes where your father and grandfather > > >>>>>>> still exist... > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> i don't want to hear it! > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Why not? You're effectively saying that the Universe has a > > >>>>>> particular form, one in which your proof works. That's akin to > > >>>>>> a circular argument. Maybe the universe does have such a form, > > >>>>>> and time travel really is impossible, but you have no proof of > > >>>>>> that. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Sylvia. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> I would say by now somebody in the far future would be here > > >>>>> now... > > >>>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> That's a different argument. But maybe the reason no time traveller > > >>>> from the far future has come here is that there is no far future > > >>>> from which to come - civilisation wipes itself out - humans become > > >>>> extinct due to natural disaster, etc. > > >>>> > > >>>> Sylvia. > > >>> > > >>> Where did you get this idea "civilisation wipes itself out", and > > >>> "humans become extinct"? a crystal ball?? > > >>> > > >> > > >> They're merely possibilities. Since they are possible, you cannot use > > >> the non-existence of time travellers from the future as proof that time > > >> travel is impossible. > > >> > > >> Sylvia. > > > > > > So, you actually believe that it is possible that a whole "civilisation" can be wiped out?? How??? Can you give an example? > > > > Nearby supernova, collision between black-holes somewhere in the > > galactic neighbourhood, large comet collision with Earth, worldwide > > nuclear war, biological weapons, runaway global warming, return to > > ice-ball Earth. The list of possibilities is endless. > > > > > > > > Also, I don't see any signs of 'humans becoming extint', ...what signs do you see, Mrs Else? > > > > > > > Well, for the most part there wouldn't be any signs, because it wouldn't > > be a gradual process. > > > > Sylvia. > > Most girls don't even think like you do... I wrote "an example" not 'examples'... lets take one of your examples: "large comet collision with Earth". It has never in the past happen to wipe out a whole cilivization, maybe a few ants...it's speculation, I DON'T WANT TO HEAR SPECULATION. Your so-called theories are useless today. They are nothing more than science fiction ideas.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-02 12:03 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <ectn6aF5bmlU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #461411 |
On 2/01/2017 11:48 AM, The Starmaker wrote: > The Starmaker wrote: >> >> Sylvia Else wrote: >>> >>> On 1/01/2017 5:51 AM, The Starmaker wrote: >>>> Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On 31/12/2016 6:05 PM, The Starmaker wrote: >>>>>> Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 31/12/2016 3:21 PM, The Starmaker wrote: >>>>>>>> Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 31/12/2016 6:19 AM, The Starmaker wrote: >>>>>>>>>> lets say you travel back in time in a time machine and your >>>>>>>>>> time machine lands on your grandfather and kills him... >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Time Travel Is Not Possible. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Any answers you give saying time travel is possible would >>>>>>>>>> be...absurd answers. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> i don't want to hear absurd answers like you come back in >>>>>>>>>> unproven paralell universes where your father and grandfather >>>>>>>>>> still exist... >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> i don't want to hear it! >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Why not? You're effectively saying that the Universe has a >>>>>>>>> particular form, one in which your proof works. That's akin to >>>>>>>>> a circular argument. Maybe the universe does have such a form, >>>>>>>>> and time travel really is impossible, but you have no proof of >>>>>>>>> that. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I would say by now somebody in the far future would be here >>>>>>>> now... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That's a different argument. But maybe the reason no time traveller >>>>>>> from the far future has come here is that there is no far future >>>>>>> from which to come - civilisation wipes itself out - humans become >>>>>>> extinct due to natural disaster, etc. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>>> >>>>>> Where did you get this idea "civilisation wipes itself out", and >>>>>> "humans become extinct"? a crystal ball?? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> They're merely possibilities. Since they are possible, you cannot use >>>>> the non-existence of time travellers from the future as proof that time >>>>> travel is impossible. >>>>> >>>>> Sylvia. >>>> >>>> So, you actually believe that it is possible that a whole "civilisation" can be wiped out?? How??? Can you give an example? >>> >>> Nearby supernova, collision between black-holes somewhere in the >>> galactic neighbourhood, large comet collision with Earth, worldwide >>> nuclear war, biological weapons, runaway global warming, return to >>> ice-ball Earth. The list of possibilities is endless. >>> >>>> >>>> Also, I don't see any signs of 'humans becoming extint', ...what signs do you see, Mrs Else? >>>> >>> >>> Well, for the most part there wouldn't be any signs, because it wouldn't >>> be a gradual process. >>> >>> Sylvia. >> >> Most girls don't even think like you do... > > > I wrote "an example" not 'examples'... Really, you wanted just one example? > > lets take one of your examples: "large comet collision with Earth". > > It has never in the past happen to wipe out a whole cilivization, maybe > a few ants...it's speculation, I DON'T WANT TO HEAR SPECULATION. Your > so-called > theories are useless today. They are nothing more than science fiction > ideas. > Of course human civilisation has never been wiped out - if it had been, then we'd not be here to discuss it (a variation of the anthropic principle). That means that we have no idea of the probability of its happening. Perhaps it's quite likely, and we've just been very lucky. The Earth has been hit by large objects in the past, causing mass extinctions. It's not beyond the bounds of possibility that such a thing could happen again, and be severe enough to wipe out the human race. You've sought to characterise the absence of visitors from the future as proof that time travel is impossible. "Proof" is a strong word. To prove something you need to exclude not just likely counter-examples, but all possible counter-examples. You're nowhere near being able to do that. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-01 21:07 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <5869E028.3FF1@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #461417 |
Sylvia Else wrote: > > On 2/01/2017 11:48 AM, The Starmaker wrote: > > The Starmaker wrote: > >> > >> Sylvia Else wrote: > >>> > >>> On 1/01/2017 5:51 AM, The Starmaker wrote: > >>>> Sylvia Else wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> On 31/12/2016 6:05 PM, The Starmaker wrote: > >>>>>> Sylvia Else wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On 31/12/2016 3:21 PM, The Starmaker wrote: > >>>>>>>> Sylvia Else wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On 31/12/2016 6:19 AM, The Starmaker wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> lets say you travel back in time in a time machine and your > >>>>>>>>>> time machine lands on your grandfather and kills him... > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Time Travel Is Not Possible. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Any answers you give saying time travel is possible would > >>>>>>>>>> be...absurd answers. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> i don't want to hear absurd answers like you come back in > >>>>>>>>>> unproven paralell universes where your father and grandfather > >>>>>>>>>> still exist... > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> i don't want to hear it! > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Why not? You're effectively saying that the Universe has a > >>>>>>>>> particular form, one in which your proof works. That's akin to > >>>>>>>>> a circular argument. Maybe the universe does have such a form, > >>>>>>>>> and time travel really is impossible, but you have no proof of > >>>>>>>>> that. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Sylvia. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> I would say by now somebody in the far future would be here > >>>>>>>> now... > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> That's a different argument. But maybe the reason no time traveller > >>>>>>> from the far future has come here is that there is no far future > >>>>>>> from which to come - civilisation wipes itself out - humans become > >>>>>>> extinct due to natural disaster, etc. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Sylvia. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Where did you get this idea "civilisation wipes itself out", and > >>>>>> "humans become extinct"? a crystal ball?? > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> They're merely possibilities. Since they are possible, you cannot use > >>>>> the non-existence of time travellers from the future as proof that time > >>>>> travel is impossible. > >>>>> > >>>>> Sylvia. > >>>> > >>>> So, you actually believe that it is possible that a whole "civilisation" can be wiped out?? How??? Can you give an example? > >>> > >>> Nearby supernova, collision between black-holes somewhere in the > >>> galactic neighbourhood, large comet collision with Earth, worldwide > >>> nuclear war, biological weapons, runaway global warming, return to > >>> ice-ball Earth. The list of possibilities is endless. > >>> > >>>> > >>>> Also, I don't see any signs of 'humans becoming extint', ...what signs do you see, Mrs Else? > >>>> > >>> > >>> Well, for the most part there wouldn't be any signs, because it wouldn't > >>> be a gradual process. > >>> > >>> Sylvia. > >> > >> Most girls don't even think like you do... > > > > > > I wrote "an example" not 'examples'... > > Really, you wanted just one example? > > > > > lets take one of your examples: "large comet collision with Earth". > > > > It has never in the past happen to wipe out a whole cilivization, maybe > > a few ants...it's speculation, I DON'T WANT TO HEAR SPECULATION. Your > > so-called > > theories are useless today. They are nothing more than science fiction > > ideas. > > > > Of course human civilisation has never been wiped out - if it had been, > then we'd not be here to discuss it (a variation of the anthropic > principle). That means that we have no idea of the probability of its > happening. Perhaps it's quite likely, and we've just been very lucky. Wrong. If you list all the "we've just been very lucky"...it will turn out it's not Luck. > > The Earth has been hit by large objects in the past, causing mass > extinctions. Oh oh, here comes the "What happen to the dinosaurs?" theories...i thought you had more intelligence thab that...i guess I over estimated you...you are a girl. >It's not beyond the bounds of possibility that such a thing > could happen again, and be severe enough to wipe out the human race. every single person, right? > > You've sought to characterise the absence of visitors from the future as > proof that time travel is impossible. "Proof" is a strong word. To prove > something you need to exclude not just likely counter-examples, but all > possible counter-examples. You're nowhere near being able to do that. > > Sylvia. Yes, "Proof" is a strong word...not inside the vocalubulary of the 'scientific community'. "Maybe" is the word they worship.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-02 16:25 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <ecu6j8F8is2U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #461430 |
On 2/01/2017 4:07 PM, The Starmaker wrote: >> The Earth has been hit by large objects in the past, causing mass >> extinctions. > > Oh oh, here comes the "What happen to the dinosaurs?" theories...i thought you had more > intelligence thab that...i guess I over estimated you...you are a girl. > > > > > >> It's not beyond the bounds of possibility that such a thing >> could happen again, and be severe enough to wipe out the human race. > > every single person, right? Why not? > > >> >> You've sought to characterise the absence of visitors from the future as >> proof that time travel is impossible. "Proof" is a strong word. To prove >> something you need to exclude not just likely counter-examples, but all >> possible counter-examples. You're nowhere near being able to do that. >> >> Sylvia. > > > Yes, "Proof" is a strong word...not inside the vocalubulary of the 'scientific community'. "Maybe" is the word they worship. > If you're content with may be impossible, or even probably impossible, then that's fine. Just don't claim to have proved that it's impossible, when you haven't. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-02 10:19 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <586A99A4.792E@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #461433 |
Sylvia Else wrote: > > On 2/01/2017 4:07 PM, The Starmaker wrote: > > >> The Earth has been hit by large objects in the past, causing mass > >> extinctions. > > > > Oh oh, here comes the "What happen to the dinosaurs?" theories...i thought you had more > > intelligence thab that...i guess I over estimated you...you are a girl. > > > > > > > > > > > >> It's not beyond the bounds of possibility that such a thing > >> could happen again, and be severe enough to wipe out the human race. > > > > every single person, right? > > Why not? You never heard of...survive? > > > > > > >> > >> You've sought to characterise the absence of visitors from the future as > >> proof that time travel is impossible. "Proof" is a strong word. To prove > >> something you need to exclude not just likely counter-examples, but all > >> possible counter-examples. You're nowhere near being able to do that. > >> > >> Sylvia. > > > > > > Yes, "Proof" is a strong word...not inside the vocalubulary of the 'scientific community'. "Maybe" is the word they worship. > > > > If you're content with may be impossible, or even probably impossible, > then that's fine. Just don't claim to have proved that it's impossible, > when you haven't. > > Sylvia. I understand...yous people in the 'scientific community' are not allowed to Think of the "not possible", or "impossible". It just makes yous sound smarter to say all the possibilities...that's called 'ad hoc theories'. Like, "of course there are time travellers, they are just in another universe!" But i never read a science fiction book, i leave in a real world...only one earth, only one universe. I'm also not a doom and gloomer...that's yous department. Your logic says there are no time travlers because the comet killed them.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-03 14:54 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <ed0lj2Fr7t8U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #461448 |
On 3/01/2017 5:19 AM, The Starmaker wrote: > Sylvia Else wrote: >> >> On 2/01/2017 4:07 PM, The Starmaker wrote: >> >>>> The Earth has been hit by large objects in the past, causing mass >>>> extinctions. >>> >>> Oh oh, here comes the "What happen to the dinosaurs?" theories...i thought you had more >>> intelligence thab that...i guess I over estimated you...you are a girl. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> It's not beyond the bounds of possibility that such a thing >>>> could happen again, and be severe enough to wipe out the human race. >>> >>> every single person, right? >> >> Why not? > > > You never heard of...survive? In an episode of "Dinosaurs" a school teacher explained that there will always be more of an endangered animal species, because that's what "more" means. Is that your manner of thinking here? > > > Your logic says there are no time travlers because the comet killed > them. > No it's doesn't, and I'm having a hard time understanding why you've got this so muddled. The point at issue is not whether there are no time travellers for this reason, nor even whether time travel is possible. The focus is on whether your purported proof of the absence of time travel is valid. I'm offering alternative scenarios that explain the absence of time travellers even if time travel is possible. These possible, even if unlikely, scenarios invalidate your proof which depends on the impossibility of time travel being the only possible explanation for the absence of time travellers. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-03 21:18 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <586C858B.4A@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #461474 |
Sylvia Else wrote: > > On 3/01/2017 5:19 AM, The Starmaker wrote: > > Sylvia Else wrote: > >> > >> On 2/01/2017 4:07 PM, The Starmaker wrote: > >> > >>>> The Earth has been hit by large objects in the past, causing mass > >>>> extinctions. > >>> > >>> Oh oh, here comes the "What happen to the dinosaurs?" theories...i thought you had more > >>> intelligence thab that...i guess I over estimated you...you are a girl. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>> It's not beyond the bounds of possibility that such a thing > >>>> could happen again, and be severe enough to wipe out the human race. > >>> > >>> every single person, right? > >> > >> Why not? > > > > > > You never heard of...survive? > > In an episode of "Dinosaurs" a school teacher explained that there will > always be more of an endangered animal species, because that's what > "more" means. > > Is that your manner of thinking here? > > > > > > > Your logic says there are no time travlers because the comet killed > > them. > > > > No it's doesn't, and I'm having a hard time understanding why you've got > this so muddled. > > The point at issue is not whether there are no time travellers for this > reason, nor even whether time travel is possible. The focus is on > whether your purported proof of the absence of time travel is valid. > > I'm offering alternative scenarios that explain the absence of time > travellers even if time travel is possible. These possible, even if > unlikely, scenarios invalidate your proof which depends on the > impossibility of time travel being the only possible explanation for the > absence of time travellers. > > Sylvia. Maybe your problem is...with the words..."not possible", and you use...'it is possible'. Your "alternative scenarios" are based on...probability. And, "probability" is a math term, and math is not science. Math is not reality. I'm not interested in...probabilities.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-04 16:45 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <ed3gfnFi1dhU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #461516 |
On 4/01/2017 4:18 PM, The Starmaker wrote: > Sylvia Else wrote: >> >> On 3/01/2017 5:19 AM, The Starmaker wrote: >>> Sylvia Else wrote: >>>> >>>> On 2/01/2017 4:07 PM, The Starmaker wrote: >>>> >>>>>> The Earth has been hit by large objects in the past, causing mass >>>>>> extinctions. >>>>> >>>>> Oh oh, here comes the "What happen to the dinosaurs?" theories...i thought you had more >>>>> intelligence thab that...i guess I over estimated you...you are a girl. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> It's not beyond the bounds of possibility that such a thing >>>>>> could happen again, and be severe enough to wipe out the human race. >>>>> >>>>> every single person, right? >>>> >>>> Why not? >>> >>> >>> You never heard of...survive? >> >> In an episode of "Dinosaurs" a school teacher explained that there will >> always be more of an endangered animal species, because that's what >> "more" means. >> >> Is that your manner of thinking here? >> >>> >>> >>> Your logic says there are no time travlers because the comet killed >>> them. >>> >> >> No it's doesn't, and I'm having a hard time understanding why you've got >> this so muddled. >> >> The point at issue is not whether there are no time travellers for this >> reason, nor even whether time travel is possible. The focus is on >> whether your purported proof of the absence of time travel is valid. >> >> I'm offering alternative scenarios that explain the absence of time >> travellers even if time travel is possible. These possible, even if >> unlikely, scenarios invalidate your proof which depends on the >> impossibility of time travel being the only possible explanation for the >> absence of time travellers. >> >> Sylvia. > > > Maybe your problem is...with the words..."not possible", and you use...'it is possible'. > > > Your "alternative scenarios" are based on...probability. And, "probability" is a math term, and math is not science. > > Math is not reality. > > I'm not interested in...probabilities. > I think you just don't want to concede that your proof doesn't work. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-03 21:53 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <586C8DC4.2DF3@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #461518 |
Sylvia Else wrote: > > On 4/01/2017 4:18 PM, The Starmaker wrote: > > Sylvia Else wrote: > >> > >> On 3/01/2017 5:19 AM, The Starmaker wrote: > >>> Sylvia Else wrote: > >>>> > >>>> On 2/01/2017 4:07 PM, The Starmaker wrote: > >>>> > >>>>>> The Earth has been hit by large objects in the past, causing mass > >>>>>> extinctions. > >>>>> > >>>>> Oh oh, here comes the "What happen to the dinosaurs?" theories...i thought you had more > >>>>> intelligence thab that...i guess I over estimated you...you are a girl. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> It's not beyond the bounds of possibility that such a thing > >>>>>> could happen again, and be severe enough to wipe out the human race. > >>>>> > >>>>> every single person, right? > >>>> > >>>> Why not? > >>> > >>> > >>> You never heard of...survive? > >> > >> In an episode of "Dinosaurs" a school teacher explained that there will > >> always be more of an endangered animal species, because that's what > >> "more" means. > >> > >> Is that your manner of thinking here? > >> > >>> > >>> > >>> Your logic says there are no time travlers because the comet killed > >>> them. > >>> > >> > >> No it's doesn't, and I'm having a hard time understanding why you've got > >> this so muddled. > >> > >> The point at issue is not whether there are no time travellers for this > >> reason, nor even whether time travel is possible. The focus is on > >> whether your purported proof of the absence of time travel is valid. > >> > >> I'm offering alternative scenarios that explain the absence of time > >> travellers even if time travel is possible. These possible, even if > >> unlikely, scenarios invalidate your proof which depends on the > >> impossibility of time travel being the only possible explanation for the > >> absence of time travellers. > >> > >> Sylvia. > > > > > > Maybe your problem is...with the words..."not possible", and you use...'it is possible'. > > > > > > Your "alternative scenarios" are based on...probability. And, "probability" is a math term, and math is not science. > > > > Math is not reality. > > > > I'm not interested in...probabilities. > > > > I think you just don't want to concede that your proof doesn't work. > > Sylvia. Let me explain why a comet will never wipe out cilivatization... Probability is the possibility that an event will occur, as expressed by the ratio of the number of actual occurrences to the total number of possible occurrences. Since a comet has never wiped out civilization on earth, there is no actual occurrence by ratio, no two amounts, or even one amount. It is "an improbable event". A comet will never wipe out civilatization because it is impossible. Therefore, any time travelers in the future would be here now buying lottery tickets and betting at the racetrack. Time Travel Is Not Possible and it's Impossible. That is not how the world and the universe works. Nature is not going to go to all this trouble and then wipe out civilazation with a comet. It's not in the works..
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-05 11:38 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <586EA0AD.16BE@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #461519 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > Sylvia Else wrote: > > > > On 4/01/2017 4:18 PM, The Starmaker wrote: > > > Sylvia Else wrote: > > >> > > >> On 3/01/2017 5:19 AM, The Starmaker wrote: > > >>> Sylvia Else wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>> On 2/01/2017 4:07 PM, The Starmaker wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>>>> The Earth has been hit by large objects in the past, causing mass > > >>>>>> extinctions. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Oh oh, here comes the "What happen to the dinosaurs?" theories...i thought you had more > > >>>>> intelligence thab that...i guess I over estimated you...you are a girl. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> It's not beyond the bounds of possibility that such a thing > > >>>>>> could happen again, and be severe enough to wipe out the human race. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> every single person, right? > > >>>> > > >>>> Why not? > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> You never heard of...survive? > > >> > > >> In an episode of "Dinosaurs" a school teacher explained that there will > > >> always be more of an endangered animal species, because that's what > > >> "more" means. > > >> > > >> Is that your manner of thinking here? > > >> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Your logic says there are no time travlers because the comet killed > > >>> them. > > >>> > > >> > > >> No it's doesn't, and I'm having a hard time understanding why you've got > > >> this so muddled. > > >> > > >> The point at issue is not whether there are no time travellers for this > > >> reason, nor even whether time travel is possible. The focus is on > > >> whether your purported proof of the absence of time travel is valid. > > >> > > >> I'm offering alternative scenarios that explain the absence of time > > >> travellers even if time travel is possible. These possible, even if > > >> unlikely, scenarios invalidate your proof which depends on the > > >> impossibility of time travel being the only possible explanation for the > > >> absence of time travellers. > > >> > > >> Sylvia. > > > > > > > > > Maybe your problem is...with the words..."not possible", and you use...'it is possible'. > > > > > > > > > Your "alternative scenarios" are based on...probability. And, "probability" is a math term, and math is not science. > > > > > > Math is not reality. > > > > > > I'm not interested in...probabilities. > > > > > > > I think you just don't want to concede that your proof doesn't work. > > > > Sylvia. > > Let me explain why a comet will never wipe out cilivatization... > > Probability is the possibility that an event will occur, as expressed by the ratio of the number of actual occurrences to the total number of possible occurrences. > > Since a comet has never wiped out civilization on earth, there is no actual occurrence by ratio, no two amounts, or even one amount. > > It is "an improbable event". A comet will never wipe out civilatization because it is impossible. > > Therefore, any time travelers in the future would be here now buying lottery tickets and betting at the racetrack. > > Time Travel Is Not Possible and it's Impossible. > > That is not how the world and the universe works. > > Nature is not going to go to all this trouble and then wipe out civilazation with a comet. It's not in the works.. okay, maybe the time traveler killing his grandfather is a little too much.. how about the time traveler goes back a day and buys a lottery ticket that pays 500 million dollars, goes back to the future and deposits the money, goes back again, plays the same numbers, goes back and deposits another 500 million, goes back again, plays the same numbers, goes back and deposits another 500 million, i'm having trouble figuring out where is all this money coming from... are the serial numbers the same? are the lottery officals wondering why are there all these paid checks made out to the same person shows paid over billion dollars but only 500 million paid out.. something is wrong with your 'possible time travel senerios'. Nature doesn't work this way. Time Travel Is Not Possible
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-06 11:18 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <ed862eFnbuaU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #461623 |
On 6/01/2017 6:38 AM, The Starmaker wrote: > > how about the time traveler goes back a day and buys a lottery ticket > that pays 500 million dollars, goes back to the future and deposits > the money, goes back again, plays the same numbers, goes back and > deposits another 500 million, goes back again, plays the same > numbers, goes back and deposits another 500 million, > > > i'm having trouble figuring out where is all this money coming > from... are the serial numbers the same? are the lottery officals > wondering why are there all these paid checks made out to the same > person shows paid over billion dollars but only 500 million paid > out.. > > something is wrong with your 'possible time travel senerios'. > > Nature doesn't work this way. Well, we don't know how it works (if it works) in the context of time travel. In a version of the universe where a time traveller returns to a new branch of history each time he travels back and forward, he'd find that he only ever managed to accumulate one payout, because he never returns to the version of history in which he'd previously deposited a payout. He might even find that the winning numbers change in each new future (butterfly effect), making his lottery tickets worthless. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-05 16:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <XnsA6F4AA87B216Ctaustingmail@69.16.179.42> |
| In reply to | #461671 |
Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in
news:ed862eFnbuaU1@mid.individual.net:
> On 6/01/2017 6:38 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
>
>>
>> how about the time traveler goes back a day and buys a lottery
>> ticket that pays 500 million dollars, goes back to the future
>> and deposits the money, goes back again, plays the same
>> numbers, goes back and deposits another 500 million, goes back
>> again, plays the same numbers, goes back and deposits another
>> 500 million,
>>
>>
>> i'm having trouble figuring out where is all this money coming
>> from... are the serial numbers the same? are the lottery
>> officals wondering why are there all these paid checks made out
>> to the same person shows paid over billion dollars but only 500
>> million paid out..
>>
>> something is wrong with your 'possible time travel senerios'.
>>
>> Nature doesn't work this way.
>
> Well, we don't know how it works (if it works) in the context of
> time travel.
>
> In a version of the universe where a time traveller returns to a
> new branch of history each time he travels back and forward,
> he'd find that he only ever managed to accumulate one payout,
> because he never returns to the version of history in which he'd
> previously deposited a payout.
>
> He might even find that the winning numbers change in each new
> future (butterfly effect), making his lottery tickets worthless.
>
Or he'd find what pretty much *everyone* already knows: lotteries
pay out the same amount regardless of how many winning tickets
there are. It's called "long division," and grade school kids can
do it.
--
Terry Austin
Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB
"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek
Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-05 17:50 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <586EF7F2.26DB@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #461671 |
Sylvia Else wrote: > > On 6/01/2017 6:38 AM, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > how about the time traveler goes back a day and buys a lottery ticket > > that pays 500 million dollars, goes back to the future and deposits > > the money, goes back again, plays the same numbers, goes back and > > deposits another 500 million, goes back again, plays the same > > numbers, goes back and deposits another 500 million, > > > > > > i'm having trouble figuring out where is all this money coming > > from... are the serial numbers the same? are the lottery officals > > wondering why are there all these paid checks made out to the same > > person shows paid over billion dollars but only 500 million paid > > out.. > > > > something is wrong with your 'possible time travel senerios'. > > > > Nature doesn't work this way. > > Well, we don't know how it works (if it works) in the context of time > travel. > > In a version of the universe where a time traveller returns to a new > branch of history each time he travels back and forward, he'd find that > he only ever managed to accumulate one payout, because he never returns > to the version of history in which he'd previously deposited a payout. > > He might even find that the winning numbers change in each new future > (butterfly effect), making his lottery tickets worthless. > > Sylvia. What? I'll reiterate... he travels back in time to Dec. 30th 2016 buys a lottery ticket numbers are 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 wins and gets a check for 500 million.. deposits the check.. he goes back in time to Dec. 30th 2016 buys a lottery ticket numbers are 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 wins and gets a check for 500 million.. deposits the check.. he goes back in time to Dec. 30th 2016 buys a lottery ticket numbers are 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 wins and gets a check for 500 million.. deposits the check.. he goes back in time to Dec. 30th 2016 buys a lottery ticket numbers are 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 wins and gets a check for 500 million.. deposits the check.. He's got two billion dollars now in the bank. he goes back in time to Dec. 30th 2016 ....
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-06 13:29 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <ed8dp7FovllU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #461681 |
On 6/01/2017 12:50 PM, The Starmaker wrote: > Sylvia Else wrote: >> >> On 6/01/2017 6:38 AM, The Starmaker wrote: >> >>> >>> how about the time traveler goes back a day and buys a lottery ticket >>> that pays 500 million dollars, goes back to the future and deposits >>> the money, goes back again, plays the same numbers, goes back and >>> deposits another 500 million, goes back again, plays the same >>> numbers, goes back and deposits another 500 million, >>> >>> >>> i'm having trouble figuring out where is all this money coming >>> from... are the serial numbers the same? are the lottery officals >>> wondering why are there all these paid checks made out to the same >>> person shows paid over billion dollars but only 500 million paid >>> out.. >>> >>> something is wrong with your 'possible time travel senerios'. >>> >>> Nature doesn't work this way. >> >> Well, we don't know how it works (if it works) in the context of time >> travel. >> >> In a version of the universe where a time traveller returns to a new >> branch of history each time he travels back and forward, he'd find that >> he only ever managed to accumulate one payout, because he never returns >> to the version of history in which he'd previously deposited a payout. >> >> He might even find that the winning numbers change in each new future >> (butterfly effect), making his lottery tickets worthless. >> >> Sylvia. > > > What? > > I'll reiterate... > > he travels back in time to > Dec. 30th 2016 > buys a lottery ticket > numbers are 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 > wins and gets a check for 500 million.. > deposits the check.. > > he goes back in time to > Dec. 30th 2016 > buys a lottery ticket > numbers are 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 > wins and gets a check for 500 million.. > deposits the check.. > > he goes back in time to > Dec. 30th 2016 > buys a lottery ticket > numbers are 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 > wins and gets a check for 500 million.. > deposits the check.. > > he goes back in time to > Dec. 30th 2016 > buys a lottery ticket > numbers are 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 > wins and gets a check for 500 million.. > deposits the check.. > > He's got two billion dollars now in the bank. > > > he goes back in time to > Dec. 30th 2016 .... > Again, you persist in assuming you preferred model of how time travel works, and refuse to accept that if time travel is possible, it may operate in a different way. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-06 09:13 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <586FD042.6EAB@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #461685 |
Sylvia Else wrote: > > On 6/01/2017 12:50 PM, The Starmaker wrote: > > Sylvia Else wrote: > >> > >> On 6/01/2017 6:38 AM, The Starmaker wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> how about the time traveler goes back a day and buys a lottery ticket > >>> that pays 500 million dollars, goes back to the future and deposits > >>> the money, goes back again, plays the same numbers, goes back and > >>> deposits another 500 million, goes back again, plays the same > >>> numbers, goes back and deposits another 500 million, > >>> > >>> > >>> i'm having trouble figuring out where is all this money coming > >>> from... are the serial numbers the same? are the lottery officals > >>> wondering why are there all these paid checks made out to the same > >>> person shows paid over billion dollars but only 500 million paid > >>> out.. > >>> > >>> something is wrong with your 'possible time travel senerios'. > >>> > >>> Nature doesn't work this way. > >> > >> Well, we don't know how it works (if it works) in the context of time > >> travel. > >> > >> In a version of the universe where a time traveller returns to a new > >> branch of history each time he travels back and forward, he'd find that > >> he only ever managed to accumulate one payout, because he never returns > >> to the version of history in which he'd previously deposited a payout. > >> > >> He might even find that the winning numbers change in each new future > >> (butterfly effect), making his lottery tickets worthless. > >> > >> Sylvia. > > > > > > What? > > > > I'll reiterate... > > > > he travels back in time to > > Dec. 30th 2016 > > buys a lottery ticket > > numbers are 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 > > wins and gets a check for 500 million.. > > deposits the check.. > > > > he goes back in time to > > Dec. 30th 2016 > > buys a lottery ticket > > numbers are 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 > > wins and gets a check for 500 million.. > > deposits the check.. > > > > he goes back in time to > > Dec. 30th 2016 > > buys a lottery ticket > > numbers are 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 > > wins and gets a check for 500 million.. > > deposits the check.. > > > > he goes back in time to > > Dec. 30th 2016 > > buys a lottery ticket > > numbers are 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 > > wins and gets a check for 500 million.. > > deposits the check.. > > > > He's got two billion dollars now in the bank. > > > > > > he goes back in time to > > Dec. 30th 2016 .... > > > > Again, you persist in assuming you preferred model of how time travel > works, and refuse to accept that if time travel is possible, it may > operate in a different way. > > Sylvia. You cannot invoke unproven 'other universes' just so you can come up with ad hoc theories to everything unanswered. That is what con artist so... are you a con artist? You have a red car in one universe and a black car in the other universe, is that right????
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-07 11:57 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <edasnpFcvefU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #461731 |
On 7/01/2017 4:13 AM, The Starmaker wrote: > Sylvia Else wrote: >> >> On 6/01/2017 12:50 PM, The Starmaker wrote: >>> Sylvia Else wrote: >>>> >>>> On 6/01/2017 6:38 AM, The Starmaker wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> how about the time traveler goes back a day and buys a >>>>> lottery ticket that pays 500 million dollars, goes back to >>>>> the future and deposits the money, goes back again, plays the >>>>> same numbers, goes back and deposits another 500 million, >>>>> goes back again, plays the same numbers, goes back and >>>>> deposits another 500 million, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> i'm having trouble figuring out where is all this money >>>>> coming from... are the serial numbers the same? are the >>>>> lottery officals wondering why are there all these paid >>>>> checks made out to the same person shows paid over billion >>>>> dollars but only 500 million paid out.. >>>>> >>>>> something is wrong with your 'possible time travel >>>>> senerios'. >>>>> >>>>> Nature doesn't work this way. >>>> >>>> Well, we don't know how it works (if it works) in the context >>>> of time travel. >>>> >>>> In a version of the universe where a time traveller returns to >>>> a new branch of history each time he travels back and forward, >>>> he'd find that he only ever managed to accumulate one payout, >>>> because he never returns to the version of history in which >>>> he'd previously deposited a payout. >>>> >>>> He might even find that the winning numbers change in each new >>>> future (butterfly effect), making his lottery tickets >>>> worthless. >>>> >>>> Sylvia. >>> >>> >>> What? >>> >>> I'll reiterate... >>> >>> he travels back in time to Dec. 30th 2016 buys a lottery ticket >>> numbers are 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 wins and gets a check for 500 >>> million.. deposits the check.. >>> >>> he goes back in time to Dec. 30th 2016 buys a lottery ticket >>> numbers are 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 wins and gets a check for 500 >>> million.. deposits the check.. >>> >>> he goes back in time to Dec. 30th 2016 buys a lottery ticket >>> numbers are 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 wins and gets a check for 500 >>> million.. deposits the check.. >>> >>> he goes back in time to Dec. 30th 2016 buys a lottery ticket >>> numbers are 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 wins and gets a check for 500 >>> million.. deposits the check.. >>> >>> He's got two billion dollars now in the bank. >>> >>> >>> he goes back in time to Dec. 30th 2016 .... >>> >> >> Again, you persist in assuming you preferred model of how time >> travel works, and refuse to accept that if time travel is possible, >> it may operate in a different way. >> >> Sylvia. > > > You cannot invoke unproven 'other universes' just so you can come up > with ad hoc theories to everything unanswered. You're invoking unproven universes too, in that there is so far no evidence that the universe we inhabit is the kind you're assuming. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-10 11:34 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <ediogsFb4kcU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #461731 |
On 7/01/2017 4:13 AM, The Starmaker wrote: > Sylvia Else wrote: >> >> On 6/01/2017 12:50 PM, The Starmaker wrote: >>> Sylvia Else wrote: >>>> >>>> On 6/01/2017 6:38 AM, The Starmaker wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> how about the time traveler goes back a day and buys a lottery ticket >>>>> that pays 500 million dollars, goes back to the future and deposits >>>>> the money, goes back again, plays the same numbers, goes back and >>>>> deposits another 500 million, goes back again, plays the same >>>>> numbers, goes back and deposits another 500 million, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> i'm having trouble figuring out where is all this money coming >>>>> from... are the serial numbers the same? are the lottery officals >>>>> wondering why are there all these paid checks made out to the same >>>>> person shows paid over billion dollars but only 500 million paid >>>>> out.. >>>>> >>>>> something is wrong with your 'possible time travel senerios'. >>>>> >>>>> Nature doesn't work this way. >>>> >>>> Well, we don't know how it works (if it works) in the context of time >>>> travel. >>>> >>>> In a version of the universe where a time traveller returns to a new >>>> branch of history each time he travels back and forward, he'd find that >>>> he only ever managed to accumulate one payout, because he never returns >>>> to the version of history in which he'd previously deposited a payout. >>>> >>>> He might even find that the winning numbers change in each new future >>>> (butterfly effect), making his lottery tickets worthless. >>>> >>>> Sylvia. >>> >>> >>> What? >>> >>> I'll reiterate... >>> >>> he travels back in time to >>> Dec. 30th 2016 >>> buys a lottery ticket >>> numbers are 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 >>> wins and gets a check for 500 million.. >>> deposits the check.. >>> >>> he goes back in time to >>> Dec. 30th 2016 >>> buys a lottery ticket >>> numbers are 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 >>> wins and gets a check for 500 million.. >>> deposits the check.. >>> >>> he goes back in time to >>> Dec. 30th 2016 >>> buys a lottery ticket >>> numbers are 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 >>> wins and gets a check for 500 million.. >>> deposits the check.. >>> >>> he goes back in time to >>> Dec. 30th 2016 >>> buys a lottery ticket >>> numbers are 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 >>> wins and gets a check for 500 million.. >>> deposits the check.. >>> >>> He's got two billion dollars now in the bank. >>> >>> >>> he goes back in time to >>> Dec. 30th 2016 .... >>> >> >> Again, you persist in assuming you preferred model of how time travel >> works, and refuse to accept that if time travel is possible, it may >> operate in a different way. >> >> Sylvia. > > > You cannot invoke unproven 'other universes' just so you can come up with ad hoc theories to everything unanswered. > I notice that you haven't sought to address my previous reply. Does that mean that you now accept that we don't know what kind of universe we inhabit, and that the one you are assuming may not be the correct one? Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-10 09:14 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <58751687.429A@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #461994 |
Sylvia Else wrote: > > On 7/01/2017 4:13 AM, The Starmaker wrote: > > Sylvia Else wrote: > >> > >> On 6/01/2017 12:50 PM, The Starmaker wrote: > >>> Sylvia Else wrote: > >>>> > >>>> On 6/01/2017 6:38 AM, The Starmaker wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> how about the time traveler goes back a day and buys a lottery ticket > >>>>> that pays 500 million dollars, goes back to the future and deposits > >>>>> the money, goes back again, plays the same numbers, goes back and > >>>>> deposits another 500 million, goes back again, plays the same > >>>>> numbers, goes back and deposits another 500 million, > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> i'm having trouble figuring out where is all this money coming > >>>>> from... are the serial numbers the same? are the lottery officals > >>>>> wondering why are there all these paid checks made out to the same > >>>>> person shows paid over billion dollars but only 500 million paid > >>>>> out.. > >>>>> > >>>>> something is wrong with your 'possible time travel senerios'. > >>>>> > >>>>> Nature doesn't work this way. > >>>> > >>>> Well, we don't know how it works (if it works) in the context of time > >>>> travel. > >>>> > >>>> In a version of the universe where a time traveller returns to a new > >>>> branch of history each time he travels back and forward, he'd find that > >>>> he only ever managed to accumulate one payout, because he never returns > >>>> to the version of history in which he'd previously deposited a payout. > >>>> > >>>> He might even find that the winning numbers change in each new future > >>>> (butterfly effect), making his lottery tickets worthless. > >>>> > >>>> Sylvia. > >>> > >>> > >>> What? > >>> > >>> I'll reiterate... > >>> > >>> he travels back in time to > >>> Dec. 30th 2016 > >>> buys a lottery ticket > >>> numbers are 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 > >>> wins and gets a check for 500 million.. > >>> deposits the check.. > >>> > >>> he goes back in time to > >>> Dec. 30th 2016 > >>> buys a lottery ticket > >>> numbers are 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 > >>> wins and gets a check for 500 million.. > >>> deposits the check.. > >>> > >>> he goes back in time to > >>> Dec. 30th 2016 > >>> buys a lottery ticket > >>> numbers are 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 > >>> wins and gets a check for 500 million.. > >>> deposits the check.. > >>> > >>> he goes back in time to > >>> Dec. 30th 2016 > >>> buys a lottery ticket > >>> numbers are 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 > >>> wins and gets a check for 500 million.. > >>> deposits the check.. > >>> > >>> He's got two billion dollars now in the bank. > >>> > >>> > >>> he goes back in time to > >>> Dec. 30th 2016 .... > >>> > >> > >> Again, you persist in assuming you preferred model of how time travel > >> works, and refuse to accept that if time travel is possible, it may > >> operate in a different way. > >> > >> Sylvia. > > > > > > You cannot invoke unproven 'other universes' just so you can come up with ad hoc theories to everything unanswered. > > > > I notice that you haven't sought to address my previous reply. Does that > mean that you now accept that we don't know what kind of universe we > inhabit, and that the one you are assuming may not be the correct one? > > Sylvia. You didn't read the foundation of my first post: "i don't want to hear absurd answers like you come back in unproven paralell universes where your father and grandfather still exist... i don't want to hear it!"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-10 17:12 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <bpca7c5couehv92jh3g323qbkulh4v84fp@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #462025 |
On Tue, 10 Jan 2017 09:14:47 -0800, The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote: Let's assume the "payout" is always at the same time (in the past) and the deposit is always at the same time (in his original present) into his only bank account which is in the present. >> >>> he travels back in time to >> >>> Dec. 30th 2016 >> >>> buys a lottery ticket >> >>> numbers are 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 >> >>> wins and gets a check for 500 million.. >> >>> deposits the check.. [ in the future/present? ] He deposits the check and now has $500 million in his account. For the first trip back, he has moved an object (a $500 million bill) from the past to the present. >> >>> he goes back in time to >> >>> Dec. 30th 2016 >> >>> buys a lottery ticket >> >>> numbers are 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 >> >>> wins and gets a check for 500 million.. >> >>> deposits the check.. For the second trip back, I see this as the simplest possibility: When he goes back the second time, his original extra "self" (from the first trip back) cannot exist there because that would mean three "selfs" there (and none back in his present) so mass/energy doesn't balance. He is the only one at the payout window and obtains another $500 million bill. During transit to the present, mass/energy will only balance if the bill exists in the past, with him in transit, yet does not exist in the present. When he arrives back in the present, his previous trip is superseded by the latest trip and the original object ($500 million bill) no longer exists until he arrives with it. He puts the $500 million in his account which again now totals to only $500 million. The mass/energy of the cash (like him) must balance over all times. If he takes it from the past, it continues to exists in the past (up until the time he takes it of course) yet does not exist in the intervening interval (consistent) since he has it with him in transit back to the present. Since it doesn't exist in the intervening interval (while he is transiting forward back to the present), it cannot exist at the end of the interval until he arrives with it. If you want the object to exist at both ends of the time segment as well as in transit with him then you are arbitrarily adding an object (a second copy of the cash) to the timeline universe segment that he is traveling on without it coming from an external segment which is a violation of the Mass/Energy/Time conservation principle (I've never heard of it either, but if you've come this far, you might agree that my time travel assembly (TTA) which is TBM (To be manufactured) will have to abide by this cherished principle - lol). This theory uses conservation of mass/energy over all finite length time segments. Mass/energy could still be created out of "nothing" (or something else), but there is a finite amount of it at any given time in the universe. Mass and energy may be moved from one part of the timeline to another, but the integral/sum of mass/energy over/* duration (time difference) for any given segment must balance so no mass/energy may be added to one part of the time without subtracting it from another. This assumes that no mass/energy has been transferred into or out of your segment from another point in time external to your segment. Hence the same $500 million can only exist at one time or the other. The integral of mass/energy over a segment (t=a to t=b) is finite but since time may go forever, the integral may be infinite over all time (t=0 to t=infinity) or even just all future time (t=a to t=infinity). It does not have to be infinite if, for example, total mass/energy at every future time declines at 1/t^2. While someone could transfer objects into or out of the time segment whose endpoints you are traveling between, if the universe/time contains finite mass/energy your segment would still have a finite amount of it. If you could record the mass/energy before you left the present and also when you arrive in the past, and then when you arrive back in the present, you could determine if there was any net transfer of any other mass/energy into or out of the time segment you traveled between. 2. When he goes back the second time there are two of him at the payout window so it is diluted to $250 million each. There are now three of him in the past and none in the present. Mass/energy do not balance since we have gone from two of him to three of him. This makes his second trip back duplicate himself (or his mass/energy). The whereas the first trip back does balance since he has merely moved his mass/energy from the present to the past. For the second trip back, there are now three of him in the past (his original "self" that doesn't have the winning numbers, his "first return self", and this "second return self") and again none in the present. This makes three of him at the segment ends (and one in the intervening interval). This adds an extra mass/energy amount at the earliest end of the time segment which increases the integral (sum) of mass/energy * time over the interval without any external actions which is an unnecessary complication for designing the time machine. If you are allowed to go back a second time and see your "previous trip self" (in addition to your original self), that is like saying that your "previous trip self" never made it back to the present in order to make the second trip back so that is not allowed (in my theory). If he goes back multiple times and is allowed to co-exist with multiple copies of himself, the payout is split and even if all the multiple copies are allowed to return to the present, the total moved to the present is still only $500 million (the amount moved from the past by one trip back). > >"i don't want to hear absurd answers like you come back in unproven >paralell universes >where your father and grandfather still exist... > > > >i don't want to hear it!" Please notice I did not use any of your "prohibited" phrases or words. Thank you, and good night (Nixon may have been one, but I am not a quitter - lol). Mike See you at the show trials - lol. --------------------------------------------------- Michael J. Strickland Reston, VA ---------------------------------------------------
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | rec.arts.sf.written
csiph-web