You find yourself in the cretaceous

[DBT]

What part of ''I don't know if it is possible or not'' is hard to grasp? It is you who emphatically claims that its not possible. It is you who claims knowledge.

Saying you don't know if it is possible is saying you think it could be.

How do you determine when something might be possible?

Is evidence needed for you to believe things? Or is faith enough?

Saying I have no faith for many reasons that human time travel is possible is by default saying I think it is impossible.

You have some faith however that it might be possible. You don't know. Meaning it might be possible to you.

Where does this faith come from?

Once again. Not knowng whether it is possible or not is not a positive claim. You are making a positive claim.

You claim that it is impossible. You do that without sufficient reason....why? Well, because the current state of physics does not eliminate the possibility.

 

[DrZoidberg]

If you know where to look. Humans have evolved a complex communication system to reduce the laboursome and often deadly chore of having to find out oneself how to locate a hibernating animals lair, or which plants are poisonous. When you're alone and/or no-one else knows either, you're operating outside humans' evolved niche.

I think you underestimate human versatility. And what our niche is. If we were that sensitive we'd die. Eating cooked food is a huge bonus. It gives us a unique niche, and access to lots of food denied other animals.

Humans are essentially the cockroaches of the primate world. We can scrape by anywhere because we cook our food. We are extremely versatile.

The mass starvation events that so often befell the farming community isn't so much about a lack of available food. It's to do with sheer numbers. Farming is an extremely specialised lifestyle. It's hard to get right. If you do you get access to more calories than hunter/gatherers could only dream about. So they have lots and lots of children. And that's the problem. Farming communities quickly reach numbers far greater than uncultivated land can support. And that's why we often had mass starvation among farming peasants. Those events were more the result of human success than any occasional failure. A lone human on a pristine verdant land can find food.

Don't make the mistake of confusing the lack of food in the current wildernesses with a lack of food in prehistoric wildernesses. The wildernesses that exist today aren't cultivated because the land sucks to cultivate. The farmed land of today, if untouched by humans could have plenty of food.

 

[untermensche]

What part of ''I don't know if it is possible or not'' is hard to grasp? It is you who emphatically claims that its not possible. It is you who claims knowledge.

Saying you don't know if it is possible is saying you think it could be.

How do you determine when something might be possible?

Is evidence needed for you to believe things? Or is faith enough?

Saying I have no faith for many reasons that human time travel is possible is by default saying I think it is impossible.

You have some faith however that it might be possible. You don't know. Meaning it might be possible to you.

Where does this faith come from?

Once again. Not knowng whether it is possible or not is not a positive claim. You are making a positive claim.

You claim that it is impossible. You do that without sufficient reason....why? Well, because the current state of physics does not eliminate the possibility.

I have reasons for my positive claim.

I have no faith in it.

I lack faith.

So I think it is impossible.

You have some faith it might be possible.

Where does that faith come from?

Does it come just from people talking or is it derived from some evidence?

 

[Bomb#20]

I am not taking anything for granted.

I am being scientific.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

The claim that the entire past is stored somehow and can be broken into by a human somehow is an extraordinary claim.

What is your evidence?

The required extraordinary evidence has been supplied. The evidence is the Michelson-Morley experiment, the precession of Mercury, the apparent positions of stars during an eclipse, the difference in time shown between atomic clocks on the ground vs. those in airplanes, the half-lives of cosmic ray particles, the fact that your GPS knows where you are, and on and on. Relativity is a well-confirmed theory.

You claimed to see the past. I hope you understand now that isn't close to true.

You mean, you hope I understand now because now I've been preached at by you?!? You didn't address my actual argument at all -- you just told me a lot of nonsense about how you thought my reason for believing what I say is something about resemblance of energy.

Let's try this again. Suppose two people on opposite sides of the earth look at Andromeda within a second of each other, and see light from the same event, say, a gamma ray burst about 2.5 million years ago. I want you to tell me what time it is in Andromeda right now. How much time has passed in Andromeda between that gamma ray burst and the slice of Andromeda's timeline that you think actually exists, because it isn't in Andromeda's past or in its future?

I'm asking because according to Relativity, the time it took the light to get from Andromeda to our two observers wasn't exactly 2.5 million years. It was a few hours longer for the guy on the side of the earth rotating away from Andromeda than for the guy on the side of the earth rotating toward Andromeda. (That's because the approximately 2.5 million light year distance between earth and Andromeda is relativistically foreshortened by different amounts for them, to the tune of several billion miles, while light goes at the same speed for both.)

So if both guys calculate what time it is in Andromeda right now, they'll get two different answers. Which one is right?

 

[bilby]

The earliest known penguin fossils are ten million years too recent. It's very unlikely that penguins existed in the Cretaceous; And if they did, they didn't live in an icy environment - because no such environments existed for the vast majority of the Cretaceous era.

Penguins are mostly limited in range today to the Southern Hemisphere (and likely always were), but most species don't live in the Antarctic. There is one species of penguins currently living north of the equator, in the Galapagos Islands (oddly these are called 'Galapagos Penguins').

When I lived in Sydney, we had penguins nesting within 100m of my house, on the shore of Manly Cove. There's no snow or ice there, and the general conditions are pretty favourable for humans (as well as for Little Penguins).

When I say penguin land, I mean land where penguins are 100% of the native macro fauna, not any and all land where penguins live.

Well it's a certainty that there was no such land during the Cretaceous.

 

[bilby]

"If we get to bring warm clothes, it'd be a breeze" is what you said and what I replied to. Dumping that claim now?

I also said that I'd likely die. I still think the exposure will be a bigger problem than food.

The Cretaceous was hot. Exposure wouldn't be a problem in most of the world. Average ocean surface temperatures were around 35°C (vs around 17°C today). You could probably add 10-15°C to modern land temperatures to get a rough guesstimate of likely weather. Heatstroke would be more of a threat than exposure.

 

[bilby]

What part of ''I don't know if it is possible or not'' is hard to grasp? It is you who emphatically claims that its not possible. It is you who claims knowledge.

Saying you don't know if it is possible is saying you think it could be.

How do you determine when something might be possible?

Is evidence needed for you to believe things? Or is faith enough?

Saying I have no faith for many reasons that human time travel is possible is by default saying I think it is impossible.

You have some faith however that it might be possible. You don't know. Meaning it might be possible to you.

Where does this faith come from?

Everything might be possible, until proven otherwise. That's literally the scientific method in a nutshell.

Science is the process of demonstrating that things are impossible. When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, might be the truth.

 

[untermensche]

I am not taking anything for granted.

I am being scientific.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

The claim that the entire past is stored somehow and can be broken into by a human somehow is an extraordinary claim.

What is your evidence?

The required extraordinary evidence has been supplied.

Nonsense.

There is ZERO evidence that some past configuration of the universe exists out there such that a human can somehow go there.

The evidence is the Michelson-Morley experiment

This has nothing to do with the existence or non-existence of 'aether'.

the precession of Mercury

This is not evidence the past exists out there in a manner humans can return to it.

You're just babbling about things related to the belief in relativity as a theory to explain how the universe behaves. IN THE PRESENT.

You have no evidence to support the claim that every configuration of the universe is stored and can somehow be returned to.

I want you to tell me what time it is in Andromeda right now. How much time has passed in Andromeda between that gamma ray burst and the slice of Andromeda's timeline that you think actually exists, because it isn't in Andromeda's past or in its future?

This is in no way evidence every past configuration of the universe is stored somehow and can be returned to by humans somehow.

You are waving your hands and jumping up and down and claiming that is an argument.

You claimed to be able to see the past in some photograph.

I tried to help you and explain you were in no way seeing the past.

You have totally failed to produce any evidence to support the extraordinary and wild claim that every configuration of the universe that has ever existed is stored somehow and it is possible for a human to go there.

 

[untermensche]

What part of ''I don't know if it is possible or not'' is hard to grasp? It is you who emphatically claims that its not possible. It is you who claims knowledge.

Saying you don't know if it is possible is saying you think it could be.

How do you determine when something might be possible?

Is evidence needed for you to believe things? Or is faith enough?

Saying I have no faith for many reasons that human time travel is possible is by default saying I think it is impossible.

You have some faith however that it might be possible. You don't know. Meaning it might be possible to you.

Where does this faith come from?

Everything might be possible, until proven otherwise. That's literally the scientific method in a nutshell.

Science is the process of demonstrating that things are impossible. When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, might be the truth.

So it is possible I can just reach out and grab the moon and eat it?

The scientific method says extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence before you believe them.

That is your problem.

You don't think like a scientist.

 

[Jokodo]

Nonsense.

There is ZERO evidence that some past configuration of the universe exists out there such that a human can somehow go there.

The evidence is the Michelson-Morley experiment

This has nothing to do with the existence or non-existence of 'aether'.

And everything with the existence of a universal Now.

the precession of Mercury

This is not evidence the past exists out there in a manner humans can return to it.

Its evidence against a universal present.

You're just babbling about things related to the belief in relativity as a theory to explain how the universe behaves. IN THE PRESENT.

THE present is a convenient fiction. Every frame of reference has it's own present.

You have no evidence to support the claim that every configuration of the universe is stored and can somehow be returned to.

No one claimed that, that's your straw man. The statement doesn't even make sense in a relativistic universe. There is no such thing as t=NOW-3*1O¹²s, so never was, never will be, so obviously it's not 'stored', whatever that would imply.

I want you to tell me what time it is in Andromeda right now. How much time has passed in Andromeda between that gamma ray burst and the slice of Andromeda's timeline that you think actually exists, because it isn't in Andromeda's past or in its future?

This is in no way evidence every past configuration of the universe is stored somehow and can be returned to by humans somehow.

You are waving your hands and jumping up and down and claiming that is an argument.

While you are jumping up and down repeating your straw men without the slightest evidence you understand it even try to what people are telling you.

You claimed to be able to see the past in some photograph.

I tried to help you and explain you were in no way seeing the past.

Lol.

You have totally failed to produce any evidence to support the extraordinary and wild claim that every configuration of the universe that has ever existed is stored somehow

Who even claimed this?

and it is possible for a human to go there.

It probably isn't feasible and never will be, but what we know about how this real world actually works is insufficient to say with certainty whether it is possible.

It is sufficient to tell that your understanding of the world is way off mark. Everyone's intuitive understanding is, but not everyone has the hubris to believe that the universe is obligated to make sense to a hairless chimpanzee who talks too much.

 

[untermensche]

To have a belief that time travel is possible also requires the belief that every configuration of the universe is stored and can be returned to somehow.

If past configurations are not stored somehow then of course it is impossible to return to the past.

A single observer (an abstraction) may have a slightly different time setting than some other observer (abstraction) but that is not evidence at all that every configuration of the universe is stored.

It just means the present is slightly bumpy. It is not the exact same thing for everyone.

But for two people next to each other their clocks must be so close the difference is imperceptible.

 

[Jokodo]

To have a belief that time travel is possible also requires the belief that every configuration of the universe is stored and can be returned to somehow.

No it doesn't.

A single observer (an abstraction) may have a slightly different time setting than some other observer (abstraction) but that is not evidence at all that every configuration of the universe is stored.

It's evidence that a universal NOW doesn'texist. No one other than you talks about storage.

It just means the present is slightly bumpy. It is not the exact same thing for everyone.

But for two people next to each other their clocks must be so close the difference is imperceptible.

Yes, and the area of my backyard can be perfectly measured by pretending the earth is flat. That doesn't make the earth flat.

 

[untermensche]

No it doesn't.

How do you return to a past that does not exist?

If you think returning to the past is possible you MUST believe it can be stored somehow.

If the past is not stored, and there is no evidence it is, then it is impossible for a human existing in the present to return to it.

To believe the past is stored in the absence of any evidence is a religious belief, a faith. A person can have faith the past still exists stored somehow, a religious belief, but not rational belief.

It's evidence that a universal NOW doesn't exist. No one other than you talks about storage.

A slightly different NOW for every observer. A slightly bumpy present.

So what?

Not evidence in any way a human stuck in their present can return to some past configuration of the universe or that past configurations are stored forever.

Yes, and the area of my backyard can be perfectly measured by pretending the earth is flat. That doesn't make the earth flat.

Two observers talking to each other may a have a slightly different present but it can't be very different and it is not evidence in any way that anything but a present exists that is slightly different for all observers.

A present that is not perfectly smooth is not evidence that all past configurations of the universe are stored.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

To have a belief that time travel is possible also requires the belief that every configuration of the universe is stored and can be returned to somehow.

If past configurations are not stored somehow then of course it is impossible to return to the past.

A single observer (an abstraction) may have a slightly different time setting than some other observer (abstraction) but that is not evidence at all that every configuration of the universe is stored.

It just means the present is slightly bumpy. It is not the exact same thing for everyone.

But for two people next to each other their clocks must be so close the difference is imperceptible.

The point is we don't know. We don't know we can do it--but we don't know we can't, either.

 

[untermensche]

To have a belief that time travel is possible also requires the belief that every configuration of the universe is stored and can be returned to somehow.

If past configurations are not stored somehow then of course it is impossible to return to the past.

A single observer (an abstraction) may have a slightly different time setting than some other observer (abstraction) but that is not evidence at all that every configuration of the universe is stored.

It just means the present is slightly bumpy. It is not the exact same thing for everyone.

But for two people next to each other their clocks must be so close the difference is imperceptible.

The point is we don't know. We don't know we can do it--but we don't know we can't, either.

When you don't know if the gods exist the rational position is not to believe they do until it is proven otherwise.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Every claim Einstein made was tested before it was believed.

 

[bilby]

Everything might be possible, until proven otherwise. That's literally the scientific method in a nutshell.

Science is the process of demonstrating that things are impossible. When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, might be the truth.

So it is possible I can just reach out and grab the moon and eat it?

There are a number of easy tests and observations that show this to be impossible, so no.

For example, you can't reach out and grab anything that's further away than your reach. No human has a reach greater than a couple of metres, the Moon is approximately 200 million times further away than you could reach.

Another example, you can't eat something significantly larger than your stomach volume. Typical human stomach volume is around one litre; The Moon has a volume of about 2x10¹⁰km³

That's two (of many) examples of observations that demonstrate that you can't do what you suggested - which is twice as many as are needed to declare it impossible - and two more than you have provided so far to support your assertion that time travel is impossible.

The scientific method says extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence before you believe them.

No, it doesn't. The scientific method is a method. It tells you how to determine what is impossible, by formulating an hypothesis that is testable, and then testing it.

Carl Sagan says that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. He's probably right, but he isn't 'science'.

The claim that something not yet disproven is not impossible is a very ordinary claim. The claim that something not yet disproven is impossible is an extraordinary claim.

That is your problem.

I don't have a problem here.

You don't think like a scientist.

How the everlasting fuck would you know?

 

[untermensche]

There are a number of easy tests and observations that show this to be impossible, so no.

But in the past people couldn't fly and now they can.

Maybe someday people will be able to stretch their arms to the moon.

Who can say it is impossible?

Another example, you can't eat something significantly larger than your stomach volume.

You take small bites.

Maybe someday? Who knows?

The scientific method says extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence before you believe them.

No, it doesn't. The scientific method is a method.

It is a rational method derived by logic.

And it is rational to say extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence to believe them.

No scientist would have a problem with that statement.

The claim that something not yet disproven is not impossible is a very ordinary claim.

Claiming to be able to go back in time is as ordinary as claiming to be able to reach out and grab the moon.

You don't think like a scientist.

How the everlasting fuck would you know?

Because I do.

I do not believe extraordinary claims are true in the complete absence of any evidence they are true.

The claim that it might be possible one day for humans to travel backwards in time is an extraordinary claim.

To believe it is true without any evidence is like believing in the gods. It is faith. Not science.

 

[bilby]

...or half baked philosophers who think they are scientists, despite knowing bugger all about either the scientific method or the last century of developments in physics.

 

[untermensche]

Religious faith: Believing things exist in the complete absence of any evidence. Believing the past could exist somehow without any evidence such a thing is possible.

My words are meaningful here. Even if they are not real big.

The eternal existence of every single configuration of the universe such that a human could return to it is NOT a scientific fact.

It is a speculation unsupported by any evidence.

Rationally discarded as nonsense until some evidence exists.

 

[bilby]

Religious faith: Believing things exist in the complete absence of any evidence. Believing the past could exist somehow without any evidence such a thing is possible.

My words are meaningful here.

You are deeply and sadly mistaken. Your words are unsupported assertions. As usual.

Even if they are not real big.

The eternal existence of every single configuration of the universe such that a human could return to it is NOT a scientific fact.

Nobody in this thread has suggested that it is. Or (apart from you) even that there is such an entity as a 'scientific fact'. Anything that has not been ruled out is possible. The only way to eliminate it as possible is to demonstrate its impossibility. Mere assertion is pointless, meaningless, and valueless.

It is a speculation unsupported by any evidence.

Speculation undenied by any evidence is the essence of possibility. Support is an avenue from 'possible' to 'probable', but is assuredly not a prerequisite for mere possibility.

Rationally discarded as nonsense until some evidence exists.

Unsupported speculation is significantly less imbecilic than speculation that depends on something like absolute time, that has been demonstrated to be nonsense for a century.

Speculation is the lifeblood of science. Declaring something to be impossible, without observational evidence that it is impossible, is as unscientific as it gets.