Anonymous at Sun, 24 Nov 2024 06:57:48 UTC No. 16491368

A: you cannot go backward in time

Anonymous at Sun, 24 Nov 2024 07:18:11 UTC No. 16491378

>>16491368
Why not?

Anonymous at Sun, 24 Nov 2024 08:50:32 UTC No. 16491425

>>16491378
they won't allow it

transcension.systems at Sun, 24 Nov 2024 21:10:01 UTC No. 16491960

>>16491364
Alternate timeweight from subatomic research etc

Anonymous at Sun, 24 Nov 2024 21:14:52 UTC No. 16491970

B: Time Travel Is Largely Freely Permitted

Anonymous at Sun, 24 Nov 2024 21:26:06 UTC No. 16491981

>>16491364
It means cleaning your room and putting things back where you found them.

Anonymous at Sun, 24 Nov 2024 21:31:05 UTC No. 16491987

You could, through metamaterials, make a slow reverse cyclotron, and just edge back.
Not a particle cyclotron but the previous word of cyclotron.

Anonymous at Sun, 24 Nov 2024 21:34:13 UTC No. 16491992

Just ask for a time slipstream suit to be developed

Anonymous at Sun, 24 Nov 2024 22:38:18 UTC No. 16492042

The most common operational definition people use for "going back in time" is jumping from one point in time to another, without touching any matter in between, so you can start experiencing time sliding past-to-future starting in an earlier time.
strawpoll.com/e2naXD8EeyB

Which is kinda logically demanding--we don't spontaneously teleport one point to another along length, width, or height, but jumping then moving forward is easier to think about than sliding future-to-past and imagining causation that way.
No I don't know linear algebra besides solving simple matrices for row-echelon form....

Anonymous at Sun, 24 Nov 2024 23:22:05 UTC No. 16492083

>>16491364
It's a confused concept based on a reification of a "time dimension". We move "forwards in time", and this implies the (conceptual) possibility of going "backwards in time". Of course time is not really a dimension that we can move in. Time just indexes configurations of matter. These configurations change all the time, and there's your time. It's not something that has a direciton that you can meaningfully flip.

Anonymous at Mon, 25 Nov 2024 00:00:06 UTC No. 16492122

>>16492083
>It's not something that has a direciton that you can meaningfully flip.
If it's just a series of configurations of matter, couldn't those configurations of matter just be reversed?

Pop scientists seem to think "time travel" means the entire universe goes back to a perfect recreation of the "past," rather than just the local environment being (approximately) unscrambled like so:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhYTrpPqkSI

Anonymous at Mon, 25 Nov 2024 00:08:59 UTC No. 16492129

>>16492122
You could reverse them in *theory*, just like you can imagine a train stopping dead in its tracks and then moving backwards. Of course the train is not gonna do that.

To anyone who wants to "time travel", good luck trying to reverse the motion of everything in the Universe. You can start by uncracking a cracked egg, gradually build up your skills.

Anonymous at Mon, 25 Nov 2024 00:20:45 UTC No. 16492144

>>16492129
>To anyone who wants to "time travel", good luck trying to reverse the motion of everything in the Universe
That's my point, reversing the entire universe is stupid and unnecessary. Why not just reverse time locally?
>imagine a train stopping dead in its tracks and then moving backwards
Trains do this all the time lol, ever heard of brakes?

Anonymous at Mon, 25 Nov 2024 00:48:33 UTC No. 16492179

>>16492144
>Why not just reverse time locally?
If you have a perfectly closed system it's theoretically possible, but only the simplest systems will be of the sort that you can configure so that they return exactly to an earlier state. Again, compare the cracked egg. This is basically the heart of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

>Trains do this all the time lol, ever heard of brakes?
No brakes turn a train on a dime dummy. Brakes have to do with acceleration of the train, they don't set the velocity from v to -v in an instant. That is what you'd need to "reverse" time, to let dt -> -dt.

Anonymous at Mon, 25 Nov 2024 00:52:21 UTC No. 16492188

>>16491364
It means you go forward in time (internal perception) while material reality appears to rewind.

Anonymous at Mon, 25 Nov 2024 02:14:37 UTC No. 16492309

>>16492179
>they don't set the velocity from v to -v in an instant.
Ridiculous argument, has nothing to do with time travel

>>16492188
Smartest poster ITT

Anonymous at Mon, 25 Nov 2024 02:30:48 UTC No. 16492333

>>16492309
>Ridiculous argument, has nothing to do with time travel
Time travel is a ridiculous concept in the first place you retard. You can't unwind time. This is basic thermodynamics

Anonymous at Mon, 25 Nov 2024 02:35:38 UTC No. 16492339

>>16492333
>This is basic *statistical fuzzing*
Prove, mathematically, why it would be impossible to reverse time locally