Re: I have built a Time Machine

From: Kirk Gregory Czuhai (lovekgc_at_altelco.net)
Date: 06/21/04 

Date: 20 Jun 2004 19:43:23 -0700

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote in message news:<40d5a7b8$0$2987$61fed72c@news.rcn.com>...
> In article <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406151106001.11523-100000@azalea.hep.wisc.edu>,
> Creighton Hogg <wchogg@hep.wisc.edu> wrote:
> >
> >
> >On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
> >
> >> In article <a6c6f6cc.0406140648.27e81b87@posting.google.com>,
> >> politics@altelco.net (honeypot) wrote:
> >> >jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote in message
> news:<40cd8044$0$3015$61fed72c@news.rcn.com>...
> >> >> In article <68c18740.0406131554.1e2d0d15@posting.google.com>,
> >> >> lovekgc@altelco.net (Kirk Gregory Czuhai) wrote:
> >> >> >I have built a time machine believe it or not and...
> >> >>
> >> >> Who have you killed when traveling? The atoms in your body used
> >> >> to be in somebody/thing else's body. For that matter, how did
> >> >> you survive the trip?
>
> >> >are you not at all worried that kirk gregory czuhai would not even
> >> >have to answer your questions?
> >>
> >> Nope. I just mentioned a problem that's been bugging me for
> >> decades. Your body has a carbon atom. If you go back in time,
> >> that carbon atom would have been someplace else at that time.
> >> So now you have one carbon atom that has to be in two places
> >> at the same time. If an atom has to have a single spacetime
> >> path, then the two can coexist. However, this would cause
> >> the spacetime we have right now to coincide with the spacetime
> >> that going back to the past caused; this creates a multi-spacetime
> >> which don't intersect. Thus, we could never detect if there
> >> were parallel spacetimes.
> >
> >Alright, I'm going to throw out my own stream of consciousness musings
> >here.
> >You're asserting that you have one carbon atom that has to be in two
> >places at once if you travel back in time. The problem I see with that is
> >that you're assuming that carbon atoms are somehow distinguishable from
> >each other, and I don't think that's true.
>
> I'm thinking of mass and/or energy. If a carbon atom exists in two
> places at once, then the universe has become more massive. This
> rather blows all of those invariant laws.
>
> > .. Now while it would be true
> >that there would be a carbon atom with a worldline that seems to "double
> >back", I don't think this would cause any physical problem simply because
> >there's no way of telling carbon atoms apart anyway. What I'm trying to
> >say, although poorly, is that I can't see any reason why nature would
> >treat this time-travelling carbon atom any different than the other
> >10^(big number) indistinguishable carbon atoms.
>
> The universe would suddenly "weigh" more. That would have to have
> some unintended side effects.
>
> /BAH
>
>
> Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.

HO

Quantcast