You find yourself in the cretaceous

[Jokodo]

It is the same cells in my nervous system this year as last.

and they didn't pick up any nutrients or discharge any waste since? Let alone discharge neurotransmitters and ions? Nutrient-deficient food in adulthood never ever has any effects whatsoever on the nervous system, since it's fully encapsuled and using the same potassium ions it was using last year?

In the enamel of the teeth there is no atomic turnover.

No waste no nutrition.

You should tell that to the hundreds of thousands of dentists who recommend fluoride substitution and calcium-rich diets to slow enamel demineralisation and encourage remineralisation.

It really doesn't matter however.

Indeed it doesn't. Calcium atoms and their constituting protons, neutrons and electrons don't come with an "I belong to untermensche's first lower left pre molar" tag, and your identity doesn't come with a list of participating particles' IDs. So we can easily imagine that your body would be reassembled from nearby parts rather than being transferred whole.

 

[DrZoidberg]

To the OP: I guess the biggest problem would not be being eaten, but finding something to eat which you know to be non-toxic. As far as this problem goes, the cretaceous is already a much better place than the triassic age, since flowering plants were already dominating the flora and you could expect to find wild relatives of many food crops, unlike a 100 million years earlier. Unfortunately, being a distant relative of a food crop isn't a guarantee for non-toxicity, many food crops do have toxic relatives even today.

If you only eat a small amount of each new candidate food source and watch out for side effects like nausea, dizziness, numbness of the fingers, you'll probably live to identify a handful of wild plants you can eat with no ill (short term) effects, but it could be a rough couple of weeks till you get there, a d you might still suffer malnutrition in the long run.

Dinosaur steaks?

 

[Jokodo]

To the OP: I guess the biggest problem would not be being eaten, but finding something to eat which you know to be non-toxic. As far as this problem goes, the cretaceous is already a much better place than the triassic age, since flowering plants were already dominating the flora and you could expect to find wild relatives of many food crops, unlike a 100 million years earlier. Unfortunately, being a distant relative of a food crop isn't a guarantee for non-toxicity, many food crops do have toxic relatives even today.

If you only eat a small amount of each new candidate food source and watch out for side effects like nausea, dizziness, numbness of the fingers, you'll probably live to identify a handful of wild plants you can eat with no ill (short term) effects, but it could be a rough couple of weeks till you get there, a d you might still suffer malnutrition in the long run.

Dinosaur steaks?

Sure, if you're lucky to make a catch, though it won't make for a very balanced diet.

 

[bilby]

Time travel opens the "closed system" to include all of time, as well as all of space. Creating matter and/or energy in an open system is a trivial matter of logistics.

Nonsense.

Creating matter or energy is a physical impossibility.

Adding to the totality of matter/energy in the universe, at any time, is impossible.

You can't shove some present matter into the past.

It is already there in some other form.

I already told you I am not inviting you to come along, so I don't know (or much care) what your problem is. Apart from an obvious inability to recognise that your arguments are circular, which is just an extension of your extreme conservatism and lack of imagination.

 

[bilby]

It is the same cells in my nervous system this year as last.

and they didn't pick up any nutrients or discharge any waste since? Let alone discharge neurotransmitters and ions? Nutrient-deficient food in adulthood never ever has any effects whatsoever on the nervous system, since it's fully encapsuled and using the same potassium ions it was using last year?

In the enamel of the teeth there is no atomic turnover.

No waste no nutrition.

It really doesn't matter however.

Taking your matter back to the past would add to the total matter/energy of the universe.

If you could add matter to the past in that manner then you could easily add matter to the totality of matter/energy in the universe now.

That would be much easier than trying to do it at some past time.

Nobody but you is talking about adding matter to the universe. We're talking about moving it. You can move matter in space; So you could equally move it in time.

Your argument is directly analogous to arguing that as you are not currently in your car, the first law of thermodynamics prohibits you from getting into your car, as that would require the creation of matter that currently doesn't exist in your car.

Change 'your car' to 'the cretaceous', and that right there is exactly your "argument".

 

[Loren Pechtel]

They are the only things large enough you would be doing much associating with them.

I guess you've... somehow never heard of the dinosaurs?

Also, I don't see why you think we wouldn't have cause to interact with fellow mammals, when a human being trapped in the Cretaceous would almost certainly be drawn to the same places and food sources as their Cretaceous ancestors, needing as we would a similarly omnivorous diet, as well as being threatened by many of the same environmental and biological threats.

Dinosaurs are reptiles. And cretaceous mammals were small, there wouldn't be much overlap in our realms.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Our fellow mammals would probably become our food source.

I think that would be a prudent option, actually. You may have noticed that a lot of humanity's preferred foods are animals with a similar nutritional budget to our own, and that is no accident.

Humanity prefers to eat things of a decent size and not too capable of fighting back. Carnivores are dangerous to go after. Thus we eat mostly herbivores. This realm is almost entirely occupied by mammals, birds and fish. Larger reptile and amphibian herbivores aren't competitive, they exist only in realms lacking effective carnivores.

It's no surprise we eat mostly mammals, birds and fish.

 

[Politesse]

They are the only things large enough you would be doing much associating with them.

I guess you've... somehow never heard of the dinosaurs?

Also, I don't see why you think we wouldn't have cause to interact with fellow mammals, when a human being trapped in the Cretaceous would almost certainly be drawn to the same places and food sources as their Cretaceous ancestors, needing as we would a similarly omnivorous diet, as well as being threatened by many of the same environmental and biological threats.

Dinosaurs are reptiles. And cretaceous mammals were small, there wouldn't be much overlap in our realms.

If dinsoaurs can be reasonably referred to as reptiles, so can mammals; in both cases, our/their evolutionary lineage diverged from that of the modern reptiles sometime during the Permian.

I have no idea what you mean by "small, there wouldn't be much overlap in our realms". That makes no bloody sense at all. I interact with small mammals (and fish, reptiles, and insects) all the freaking time. In fact, far more often than I interact with human-sized ones. And nearly all serious diseases that currently plague humanity emerged out of contact with small mammals.

 

[untermensche]

In the enamel of the teeth there is no atomic turnover.

No waste no nutrition.

You should tell that to the hundreds of thousands of dentists who recommend fluoride substitution and calcium-rich diets to slow enamel demineralisation and encourage remineralisation.

They know. It is a fact.

It really doesn't matter however.

Indeed it doesn't. Calcium atoms and their constituting protons, neutrons and electrons don't come with an "I belong to untermensche's first lower left pre molar" tag, and your identity doesn't come with a list of participating particles' IDs. So we can easily imagine that your body would be reassembled from nearby parts rather than being transferred whole.

You can't add to the totality of matter/energy in the universe now.

So you can't possibly bring some matter from the present to add to the totality of matter/energy in the past.

You have no valid objection to this.

To think a human can travel to the past is thinking you can add to the totality of matter/energy in the universe.

Ridiculously absurd and impossible.

 

[untermensche]

In the enamel of the teeth there is no atomic turnover.

No waste no nutrition.

It really doesn't matter however.

Taking your matter back to the past would add to the total matter/energy of the universe.

If you could add matter to the past in that manner then you could easily add matter to the totality of matter/energy in the universe now.

That would be much easier than trying to do it at some past time.

Nobody but you is talking about adding matter to the universe. We're talking about moving it. You can move matter in space; So you could equally move it in time.

Your argument is directly analogous to arguing that as you are not currently in your car, the first law of thermodynamics prohibits you from getting into your car, as that would require the creation of matter that currently doesn't exist in your car.

Change 'your car' to 'the cretaceous', and that right there is exactly your "argument".

You are talking about bringing matter that exists now to the past.

That is adding matter to the totality of matter/energy in the past.

You can't transform a person into something else besides either matter or energy.

And you can't add that matter or energy to the past.

That is no different from adding matter to the totality of matter/energy in the universe now.

Try to add some matter to the totality of matter/energy in the universe right now if you think it is possible.

Good luck. I won't be holding my breath.

 

[Jokodo]

You should tell that to the hundreds of thousands of dentists who recommend fluoride substitution and calcium-rich diets to slow enamel demineralisation and encourage remineralisation.

Indeed it doesn't. Calcium atoms and their constituting protons, neutrons and electrons don't come with an "I belong to untermensche's first lower left pre molar" tag, and your identity doesn't come with a list of participating particles' IDs. So we can easily imagine that your body would be reassembled from nearby parts rather than being transferred whole.

You can't add to the totality of matter/energy in the universe now.

So you can't possibly bring some matter from the present to add to the totality of matter/energy in the past.

You have no valid objection to this.

To think a human can travel to the past is thinking you can add to the totality of matter/energy in the universe.

Ridiculously absurd and impossible.

You didn't even read my post. I just told you why time travel may not require you to "bring some matter from the present to add to the totality of matter/energy in the past" in the first place.

 

[untermensche]

You should tell that to the hundreds of thousands of dentists who recommend fluoride substitution and calcium-rich diets to slow enamel demineralisation and encourage remineralisation.

Indeed it doesn't. Calcium atoms and their constituting protons, neutrons and electrons don't come with an "I belong to untermensche's first lower left pre molar" tag, and your identity doesn't come with a list of participating particles' IDs. So we can easily imagine that your body would be reassembled from nearby parts rather than being transferred whole.

You can't add to the totality of matter/energy in the universe now.

So you can't possibly bring some matter from the present to add to the totality of matter/energy in the past.

You have no valid objection to this.

To think a human can travel to the past is thinking you can add to the totality of matter/energy in the universe.

Ridiculously absurd and impossible.

You didn't even read my post. I just told you why time travel may not require you to "bring some matter from the present to add to the totality of matter/energy in the past" in the first place.

I don't buy it.

You can't project energy into the past either.

That also would add to the totality of matter/energy in the universe.

You can't add matter now and you can't do it in the past either.

Same universe.

 

[bilby]

They are the only things large enough you would be doing much associating with them.

I guess you've... somehow never heard of the dinosaurs?

Also, I don't see why you think we wouldn't have cause to interact with fellow mammals, when a human being trapped in the Cretaceous would almost certainly be drawn to the same places and food sources as their Cretaceous ancestors, needing as we would a similarly omnivorous diet, as well as being threatened by many of the same environmental and biological threats.

Dinosaurs are reptiles. And cretaceous mammals were small, there wouldn't be much overlap in our realms.

Yeah.

That's why rats weren't a problem as disease vectors in the Middle Ages.

 

[bilby]

You didn't even read my post. I just told you why time travel may not require you to "bring some matter from the present to add to the totality of matter/energy in the past" in the first place.

I don't buy it.

You can't project energy into the past either.

That also would add to the totality of matter/energy in the universe.

You can't add matter now and you can't do it in the past either.

Same universe.

Yup. Same universe. And moving matter around in that same universe is trivially easy and completely in accord with the laws of thermodynamics.

Congratulations, you havd just "proven" that you can't move. Well done

 

[untermensche]

You didn't even read my post. I just told you why time travel may not require you to "bring some matter from the present to add to the totality of matter/energy in the past" in the first place.

I don't buy it.

You can't project energy into the past either.

That also would add to the totality of matter/energy in the universe.

You can't add matter now and you can't do it in the past either.

Same universe.

Yup. Same universe. And moving matter around in that same universe is trivially easy and completely in accord with the laws of thermodynamics.

Congratulations, you havd just "proven" that you can't move. Well done

Yes. Moving through space can be done.

Congratulations. You are not totally lost.

But the universe in the past cannot be approached and present day matter or energy cannot be projected into it.

Which direction will you travel to move into the past?

This is silly fantasy. Not close to science.

 

[Jokodo]

Yup. Same universe. And moving matter around in that same universe is trivially easy and completely in accord with the laws of thermodynamics.

Congratulations, you havd just "proven" that you can't move. Well done

Yes. Moving through space can be done.

Congratulations. You are not totally lost.

But the universe in the past cannot be approached and present day matter or energy cannot be projected into it.

Which direction will you travel to move into the past?

This is silly fantasy. Not close to science.

You keep repeating your premises as if they were an argument in themselves and don't show any signs of having understood the others' arguments. Are you someone's Turing test?

 

[Jokodo]

You didn't even read my post. I just told you why time travel may not require you to "bring some matter from the present to add to the totality of matter/energy in the past" in the first place.

I don't buy it.

You can't project energy into the past either.

Maybe you can, maybe you can't.

Who said you needed to?

That also would add to the totality of matter/energy in the universe.

You can't add matter now and you can't do it in the past either.

Same universe.

"Same universe" is actually a pretty good argument that your talk about "adding matter" is void since you're only moving it around, but whatever.

 

[DrZoidberg]

To the OP: I guess the biggest problem would not be being eaten, but finding something to eat which you know to be non-toxic. As far as this problem goes, the cretaceous is already a much better place than the triassic age, since flowering plants were already dominating the flora and you could expect to find wild relatives of many food crops, unlike a 100 million years earlier. Unfortunately, being a distant relative of a food crop isn't a guarantee for non-toxicity, many food crops do have toxic relatives even today.

If you only eat a small amount of each new candidate food source and watch out for side effects like nausea, dizziness, numbness of the fingers, you'll probably live to identify a handful of wild plants you can eat with no ill (short term) effects, but it could be a rough couple of weeks till you get there, a d you might still suffer malnutrition in the long run.

Dinosaur steaks?

Sure, if you're lucky to make a catch, though it won't make for a very balanced diet.

I think it would be easy to catch them since they have no reason to identify us as a threat. Big threatening mammals will be millions of years away. Most dinosaurs were small. A chicken is essentially a dinosaur. We can hunt them with spears or atl-atls. Two weapons easy to make and master. Yum yum yum.

Flowering plants (and bees) join us 180 million years ago. That's 40 million years to spread and evolve. That's plenty of time to cover the entire planet in yummy berries. Nuts and seeds will have been around since 400 million years.

This is the diet our ancestors were living on, ie Paleo diet. The diet we have evolved to be on. I think it would be an eminently balanced and healthy diet. Way healthier than what we are eating today. Our bodies are well adapted to handle quite large quantities of poison in plants. If we go slowly and try a bit before stuffing ourselves we'll be fine. That's literally how we have been designed (by nature) to survive in nature.

That's assuming we cook the food. We are evolved to cook food. If we don't, then yes we'll likely get malnourished. And this is btw, our niche. Big animals would hunt big game. Eat as much as they could. Humans would show up once it was abandoned and steal away the leftovers, cook it to release all the stuff the big animals couldn't get to. Of course we could do the exact same thing if we were in the Cretaceous.

Until we find good feeding grounds to can keep coming back to, it'll be a struggle. Hunter gatherers would find a loop they've travel around in throughout the year. If we survive the first year and find something like that, we'd probably be more healthy then than we would be living today.

 

[Jokodo]

Sure, if you're lucky to make a catch, though it won't make for a very balanced diet.

I think it would be easy to catch them since they have no reason to identify us as a threat. Big threatening mammals will be millions of years away.

Yes, they were millions of years away. But fierce bipedal predators about our size were a well known threat to small dinosaurs, and I don't think they'd likely consult a taxonomist before running.

Most dinosaurs were small. A chicken is essentially a dinosaur. We can hunt them with spears or atl-atls. Two weapons easy to make and master. Yum yum yum.

Flowering plants (and bees) join us 180 million years ago.

That's what I said, essentially: "the cretaceous is already a much better place than the triassic age, since flowering plants were already dominating the flora"

That's 40 million years to spread and evolve. That's plenty of time to cover the entire planet in yummy berries.

I'm sure there were plenty of berries. I'm less than sure a person transplanted from an other era (or just another continent) can categorically distinguish the toxic berries of yew, ivy, and deadly nightshade from the yummy berries of strawberries, brambles and wild roses with any degree of reliability. Did you even read my post?

I'm also sure there were a lot of yummy mushrooms even back in the Permian. I don't want to be in the situation though where I have to find out which ones those are without any guidance.

Nuts and seeds will have been around since 400 million years.

Nuts and seeds are highly seasonal (berries too by the way). What's worse, many nut species only bear significant amounts of fruit once every four to six years, and very little in between: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mast_(botany)#Mast_seeding

I believe you have beech trees in Denmark/Southern Sweden? Just watch out for the beechnuts on the ground when taking a walk in the forest in fall. There were plenty in 2020, even more in 2016, and hardly any in between.

This is the diet our ancestors were living on, ie Paleo diet.

The paleo diet is a scam. Our ancestors have been digging out starch-rich tubers and grinding grass seeds since long before agriculture emerged. Grasses did exist in the late Cretaceous, but habitats where they dominate (i.e. grasslands) probably only arose later (and like other seeds, they're seasonal).

The diet we have evolved to be on. I think it would be an eminently balanced and healthy diet. Way healthier than what we are eating today. Our bodies are well adapted to handle quite large quantities of poison in plants. If we go slowly and try a bit before stuffing ourselves we'll be fine.

Going slowly and trying a bit before stuffing is literally what I suggested.

That's literally how we have been designed (by nature) to survive in nature.

We've also been designed (by nature) to communicate a lot, and take a lot of what we hear from others for true, unchecked. Other people telling us what berries and mushrooms we should eat and which ones we shouldn't, or showing us how to recognize by their green parts plants with tubers worth digging out when it's off season for berries and nuts, is literally a central part of the environment in which we evolved. The Jamestown colony almost got eradicated from famine, and they were equipped with steel tools, division of labor, crop seeds, and in contact with knowledgeable locals, and in a very similar ecosystem to the one they came from. There is a reason many biogeographers don't differentiate between the Nearctic biogeographical region and the Palaeoarctic one but rather lump them together as one  Holarctic_realm - the differences in flora and fauna are much smaller than those between similar latitudes/climates in South America and Africa, or even Africa and South East Asia.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Yes, they were millions of years away. But fierce bipedal predators about our size were a well known threat to small dinosaurs, and I don't think they'd likely consult a taxonomist before running.

All animals have types of threats or food pretty hard coded. Humans are uniquely flexible in this thinking. The biggest mammal they'd ever seen would have been a mouse like creature. I don't think we'd have that much to fear. Even from big lizards. It's the classic, they'd fear us more than we fear them. It's only if they're starving or felt threatened they'd attack.

We've also been designed (by nature) to communicate a lot, and take a lot of what we hear from others for true, unchecked. Other people telling us what berries and mushrooms we should eat and which ones we shouldn't, or showing us how to recognize by their green parts plants with tubers worth digging out when it's off season for berries and nuts, is literally a central part of the environment in which we evolved. The Jamestown colony almost got eradicated from famine, and they were equipped with steel tools, division of labor, crop seeds, and in contact with knowledgeable locals, and in a very similar ecosystem to the one they came from. There is a reason many biogeographers don't differentiate between the Nearctic biogeographical region and the Palaeoarctic one but rather lump them together as one  Holarctic_realm - the differences in flora and fauna are much smaller than those between similar latitudes/climates in South America and Africa, or even Africa and South East Asia.

The communication is an important thing. We've evolved to be in packs. Depression would most likely be our biggest enemy.