XPost: alt.paranormal, sci.skeptic, alt.atheism   
   XPost: soc.history.ancient   
   From: Dawn.Belle.Flood@gmail.com   
      
   On 11/10/2025 12:02 AM, JTEM wrote:   
   > On 11/9/25 11:52 PM, Dawn Flood wrote:   
   >   
   >> No, Honey, time travel is IMPOSSIBLE   
   >   
   > No. It's not. Possibly for humans but there's nothing that excludes   
   > it. You're just retarded, that's all.   
   >   
   >>> The numbers are staggering. The numbers are so massive that   
   >>> virtually ANYTHING possible is, over the life of our universe   
   >>> anywhere from probably to ALREADY HAPPENED.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> None, some things are impossible   
   >   
   > Time travel isn't one of them. It's not excluded under Einstein's   
   > work. You're just far too stupid to do anything but read   
   > headlines.   
   >   
      
   Okay, yep, I am not an expert in General Relativity, that much is for   
   sure!  Having said that, do you understand what a PDE is?  (It is a   
   partial differential equation.)  When Albert Einstein developed his   
   field equations of General Relativity (after some 7 to 10 years of   
   effort, probably, the latter), he did so on the basis of the newly   
   formulated area of mathematical analysis that we know today as being the   
   tensor calculus (Wikipedia refers to such as being the "Ricci   
   calculus"), which was known in Einstein's day as being the "absolute   
   calculus".  The mathematical landscape of GR is that of a 4-dimensional   
   hyperspace on a pseudo-Riemannian manifold.   
      
   Just a month after Professor Einstein had published his field equations   
   (a week earlier he had published the solution explaining the precession   
   of the planet Mercury), a mathematical physicist, Karl Schwarzschild,   
   discovered the first solution to Einstein's equations, the case of a   
   non-rotating gravitational body.  The World would have to wait some 40   
   years before another theorist would generalize that solution to a   
   rotating object.   
      
   While exotic solutions to GR certainly exist, they are regarded as being   
   non-physical, that is, they don't describe anything in Nature.  Just   
   because a physical model is mathematically coherent does not prove that   
   such describes anything in Nature.   
      
   (Please note that everything that I wrote in the above paragraph was   
   purely from my memory; I did not make any queries, except to solely   
   check spellings.)   
      
   >> Yes, as Ken has already pointed out to you, there are peer-reviewed   
   >> papers that state that time travel is a physical impossibility.   
   >   
   > For humans, it certainly seems that way. But I wasn't speaking of   
   > humans. The rules as we see & live by do not apply to sub   
   > atomic particles.   
   >   
   >> Tachyons don't exist   
   >   
   > You're retarded AND stubborn. There is support for their existence.   
   > They can not be ruled out.   
      
   Yes, they can be ruled out, at least as of today.  No experimental   
   and/or observational evidence exists for them; they are not part of the   
   Standard Model of particle physics.  You are free to believe that they   
   exist, just as you free to believe that invisible unicorns exist.   
      
   >   
   >> which is why they have not been discovered.   
   >   
   > There have been observation which fit the model for tachyons.   
   >   
   >> Has nothing to do with that.  Ask yourself this, "Why have no quarks,   
   >> which are part of the Standard Model, never been observed in isolation??"   
   >   
   > They've never been observed. Period.   
   >   
   > Quarks are "detected" indirectly. Which would likely be the case with   
   > tachyons where direct detection would be impossible.   
   >   
   > Oh. If you can only detect something indirectly, that means you can   
   > only detect it when it's with something else. What you're doing is   
   > detecting the predicted response/reaction to the presence of the   
   > quark.   
   >   
   > You, being retarded, have already misunderstood and misrepresented   
   > far too much. Why don't you talk within your knowledge sphere, like   
   > how much you enjoy farting in the tub & biting the bubbles...   
   >   
      
   The standard model that comprises the 17 fundamental particles makes   
   testable predictions, which is why physicists accept it as describing   
   reality.  Once again, tachyons are not part of the standard model.   
      
   Dawn   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)