Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #894487 > unrolled thread

Re: How Time Travel is probable

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: How Time Travel is probable JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> - 2025-10-30 08:53 -0400
    Re: How Time Travel is probable Nathan Smith <nathansmith@posteo.com> - 2025-10-30 08:49 -0600
      Re: How Time Travel is probable JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> - 2025-10-30 16:20 -0400
        Re: How Time Travel is probable x <x@x.org> - 2025-10-30 16:29 -0700
          Re: How Time Travel is probable JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> - 2025-10-31 00:32 -0400
            Re: How Time Travel is probable x <x@x.org> - 2025-10-31 14:19 -0700
              Re: How Time Travel is probable JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> - 2025-10-31 17:35 -0400
          Re: How Time Travel is probable Nathan Smith <nathansmith@posteo.com> - 2025-10-30 23:06 -0600
            Re: How Time Travel is probable JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> - 2025-10-31 06:16 -0400

#894487 — Re: How Time Travel is probable

On 10/30/25 8:35 AM, Nathan Smith wrote:

> JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>> You schizophrenics are often plagued by audio hallucinations. Yes.
>> Now STOP using your extensive list of mental disorders as an
>> excuse and get specific...

> Yes, I do get audio hallucinations. Mostly random shit, sometimes

I told you:  STOP using it as an excuse!  You want to pretend to
find fault in what I said. So, be specific. Explain WHAT you find
fault in, specifically.

>> Own your disordered ass, or I will.

> I am glad I am autistic

So am I. It makes it easier to rip you apart. If you realized that
here on usenet you are nothing but your words, and you can choose
to be a raving lunatic or a rational human being, it would be far
more difficult to humiliate you. Thankfully, you don't seem to
know that choosing to type out reasonable, rational comments is
an option.

      ....like the way you avoid identifying anything specific that
you want to dispute.

> Have you ever wondered if your the issue?

No. Impossible. You never once even stated WHAT you're disagreeing
with!



-- 
https://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/The%20Book%20of%20JTEM/page/5

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#894488

JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> writes:

> On 10/30/25 8:35 AM, Nathan Smith wrote:
>
>> JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> writes:
>      ....like the way you avoid identifying anything specific that
> you want to dispute.

Your a ableist fuck and I hope you get raped in the eye sockets by
someone with AIDs.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#894489

On 10/30/25 10:49 AM, Nathan Smith wrote:

> Your a ableist fuck and 

Oh. So you need the world to bend a knee every time you tie
on your crazy.

No. You are in control of yourself. It's always your choice.
Post intelligent, rational things and you are intelligent &
rational. It's that simple.

Stop making yourself out to be a needy, crazy fuck.

Make a different reality. Because you own your disordered ass.



-- 
https://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/The%20Book%20of%20JTEM/page/5

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#894490

On 10/30/25 13:20, JTEM wrote:
> On 10/30/25 10:49 AM, Nathan Smith wrote:
> 
>> Your a ableist fuck and 
> 
> Oh. So you need the world to bend a knee every time you tie
> on your crazy.
> 
> No. You are in control of yourself. It's always your choice.
> Post intelligent, rational things and you are intelligent &
> rational. It's that simple.
> 
> Stop making yourself out to be a needy, crazy fuck.
> 
> Make a different reality. Because you own your disordered ass.

Yes everyone has a different viewpoint of what they
consider to be 'rational or 'sane'.

It is not just true ideas and good habits anymore.

Generally what is considered 'true' is cool looking
sounds and images on televisions and radios and what
is considered 'false' is something 'boring' like writing
or text.  Let's face it.  Usenet is generally free if
you don't want images or sound.  But people only want
images and sound.  Strangely enough that is what they
consider to be 'true'.  But that is really out of it.

> 
> 
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#894491

On 10/30/25 7:29 PM, x wrote:
> On 10/30/25 13:20, JTEM wrote:
>> On 10/30/25 10:49 AM, Nathan Smith wrote:
>>
>>> Your a ableist fuck and 
>>
>> Oh. So you need the world to bend a knee every time you tie
>> on your crazy.
>>
>> No. You are in control of yourself. It's always your choice.
>> Post intelligent, rational things and you are intelligent &
>> rational. It's that simple.
>>
>> Stop making yourself out to be a needy, crazy fuck.
>>
>> Make a different reality. Because you own your disordered ass.

> Yes everyone has a different viewpoint of what they
> consider to be 'rational or 'sane'.

Not really. No. If you're not interested in a topic or the
poster, don't read it. Acting out like a disordered child is
never a rational or sane choice.

People shouldn't be triggered by the fact that if faster than
light particles exist, they allow for messages to be sent
backwards through time.





-- 
https://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/The%20Book%20of%20JTEM/page/5

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#894496

On 10/30/25 21:32, JTEM wrote:
 > On 10/30/25 7:29 PM, x wrote:
 >> On 10/30/25 13:20, JTEM wrote:
 >>> On 10/30/25 10:49 AM, Nathan Smith wrote:
 >>>
 >>>> Your a ableist fuck and
 >>>
 >>> Oh. So you need the world to bend a knee every time you tie
 >>> on your crazy.
 >>>
 >>> No. You are in control of yourself. It's always your choice.
 >>> Post intelligent, rational things and you are intelligent &
 >>> rational. It's that simple.
 >>>
 >>> Stop making yourself out to be a needy, crazy fuck.
 >>>
 >>> Make a different reality. Because you own your disordered ass.
 >
 >> Yes everyone has a different viewpoint of what they
 >> consider to be 'rational or 'sane'.
 >
 > Not really. No. If you're not interested in a topic or the
 > poster, don't read it. Acting out like a disordered child is
 > never a rational or sane choice.

I do not believe in the religion, belief system, or pseudoscience
known of as 'psychology'.

Psyche was the wife of Cupid in the Greco-Roman religion.

The word 'psyche' has also been translated as meaning 'soul'.

However the article of faith of the belief system known of
as 'psychology' is neither that souls exist and can be studied
nor the worship of the Greco-Roman personage.  Rather it is
that minds undergo a health or disease process similar to the
bodies of plants and animals.  In other words 'mental health'
and 'mental disease' are valid concepts.

Now it is a religion that generally caters to what is known
of as 'atheism'.  The word 'atheism' generally has word origins
not 'from god' but rather 'no god'.  However atheists generally
do not clearly specify the god they do not believe in.  They
also tend to be devoid of something called 'theology' in their
denials.

They also tend to try to monopolize their concept of 'rationality',
by claiming that 'sanity' is 'rational' and 'insanity' is 'not
rational'.  They however tossed out the idea that 'truth' and
'falseness' or good habits and bad habits are the basis for
'sanity' long ago.  They have the false belief that they did
not transition from science to religion when they did that.

As for 'children' or 'rationality' there are different degrees
of that.

Anyway I did not see the complete thread until now when I see
it in another usenet group.

As for this other guy, I am thinking that he is probably
seriously harmed by advocating the religion or pseudoscience
known of as 'psychology'.  I would say that a likely good
route away from this harm could be 'Christian Science', but
perhaps there could be others.  Some things people have to
do for themselves.

As for you, I think that in general time travel as you
have mentioned it (other than the progression that people
may experience if they are not moving at near light speeds)
is speculative.

I have not figured out how to set up 'killfiles'.  There
is of course all sorts of junk in many places.  Being able
to see some defecant in one's path may help you to avoid
stepping in it, however organic material may be a significant
percentage of the composition of 'soil' or 'dirt' anyway.
(Like derived from bird droppings or worm output over
the course of months or years.)

 > ...

 > People shouldn't be triggered by the fact that if faster than
 > light particles exist, they allow for messages to be sent
 > backwards through time.

There are an array of different science fiction stories.

I remember that 'In Search Of' with Leonard Nemoy in it
where he showed something like a fossil (jellyfish) that
looked like a cylindrical battery.  Nonetheless if that
were too easily or commonly done in the future at some
point, then the net result might be something like -
'yea everyone sees time travel events all the time ...
so what?  Why should I care since everybody sees them
every now and then anyway?'

Of course if the message gets garbled upon transit
(information sent versus received (Information
Theory definitions of entropy)) then the net result
can be the equal of - no message sent.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#894497

On 10/31/25 5:19 PM, x wrote:
> As for you, I think that in general time travel as you
> have mentioned it (other than the progression that people
> may experience if they are not moving at near light speeds)
> is speculative.

The time travel isn't speculative. You deconstructed the problem
wrong. What is "Speculative" would be the faster-than-light
particles. The backwards time travel would be an inescapable
fact of moving faster than time, not speculation. As for the
speculation regarding faster-than-light particles...

There is some evidence for their existence, though clearly not
at the level of "Compelling."



-- 
https://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/The%20Book%20of%20JTEM/page/5

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#894492

x <x@x.org> writes:
> Usenet is generally free if you don't want images or sound.  But
> people only want images and sound.  Strangely enough that is what they
> consider to be 'true'.

What I consider to be true is A: nothing, B: something I read in a Kurt
Vonnegut book I found interesting. What the general population considers
to be true is what you just said. What most people consider true and
what some people tightly hold onto is social constructs. They insist
that these ideas one of them came up with once is not just a concept but
a objective law of reality. Their ideas are hard as rock and exist in a
static state but the world does not so they shape the world to that
image. If something they consider true isn't true they will make it
true. If they one day decide every cow is green they will be very quick
to formulate and execute a plan to turn every cow green instead of
change their world view.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#894494

  Nathan Smith wrote:

> What I consider to be true

So you... don't consider time to be true? You don't consider
photons to be true? You don't consider the fact that a
faster-than-light particle would move backwards in time to
be true?







-- 
https://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/The%20Book%20of%20JTEM/page/5

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web