MigL

The 'effect' produced does not vary linearly with the 'cause ? For example, tapping someone on the head may produce a mild headache. Tapping someone a little harder would produce a bigger headache. That is the linear response part. If however, you bang someone on the head really hard … they die. That is the non-linear part ,because the effect produced diverges drastically. Tis can also be explained in terms of mathematical functions, but it isn't as interesting.

I really have a problem with the American Supreme Court, and the Canadian equivalent. It seems that the people we entrust with making laws, your Congress, and our Parliament, don't give a damn about passing just or complete laws, then, rely on a partisan and unelected Supreme court to 'interpret' those laws in their favor. It doesn't seem to matter which party is doing it ( they both do it ), D Trump wants a Republican leaning Supreme Court so he can get rid of the ACA and get a favorable election result from the E College, neither of which he can legally do as the laws are now interpreted. The Democrats on the other hand, want to have a Democrat leaning Supreme Court so as to protect Roe vs. Wade and legal abortion. If the American population supports legal abortion, and this is expressed through their votes and representatives in Government, why is subterfuge and stacking of courts with unelected ( and unaccountable ) judges required ? Why are not proper laws passed which resist varying interpretations, and that the people have a say in ? ( this could be re-pjrased as "Why are our elected representatives not doing thei rjobs properly ?" )

Heeeeeey ! So did Clint Eastwood in 'Gran Torino', but he turned out to be a stand up guy, in the end.

We had a few threads about this exact problem a few years back. I distinctly remember a thread where I was spectacularly wrong, but I can't find that one, just the thread about a charged ball in free fall from 2018.

This is the example I've always used... Bart and Lisa Simpson each have a wormhole generator, such that they can look through the wormhole and 'see' ( world line of zero length ) each other. Bart takes his wormhole generator and goes on a relativistic journey to another star, and returns, all the while looking at Lisa through the wormhole. His journey takes ten years, but when he gets back to Earth, 100 years have elapsed, and Lisa is long dead. So Bart steps through the wormhole and rejoins Lisa, whom he can still see, 90 years in the past. A lot of 'what ifs' and assumptions are involved, such as stable and predictable wormholes that can be 'linked', Relativistic ( close to c travel ), etc., but, current impossibilities aside, the 'mechanism' is there. As to whether it will ever be realizable, I doubt it very much also.

I think they are claiming that time travel is self-consistent, and paradoxes do not necessarily occur. And have come to this conclusion by looking at the 'general' case, not specific cases. And sorry if I gave the impression that it was your claim of a viable mechanism. I intended their claim was 'generous'.

Lesson to be learned … Dye your hair. ( nobody looks good with white hair, and the flies really show )

From my first post ( on Tuesday ), an acceleration involves a change of inertia. Even fundamental particles ( no internal structure ) will experience a change of inertia. Non-accelerating frames are called inertial frames, and accelerating frames are called non-inertial, as a consequence. Inertia is what resists forces that produce accelerations. And mass is what resists changes in inertia.

CTCs have 'provided a mechanism for time travel for quite some time, but they provide no answers for the causality breaking paradoxes that arise. I haven't looked at the paper, and probably wouldn't begin to understand it, but I assume it attempts to provide those answers. And saying CTCs provide a mechanism for time travel is being generous, there is still the problem of space-like translation via wormhole ( or some such device ) to achieve time travel. CTCs just move the goalposts of the problem from one ( current ) impossibility, to another ( current ) impossibility.

In a way we are limited by our own existence. Consider J DeLancie's words as 'Q', at the end of the last episode of Star Treck:TNG ... Q : You just don't get it, do you, Jean-Luc? The trial never ends. We wanted to see if you had the ability to expand your mind and your horizons. And for one brief moment, you did. Capt. Picard : When I realized the paradox. Q : Exactly. For that one fraction of a second, you were open to options you had never considered. *That* is the exploration that awaits you. Not mapping stars and studying nebulae, but charting the unknown possibilities of existence. Maybe in 400 years ...

That first clip of D Trump Jr. at rhe RNC sounds just like the villain in the WonderWoman:1984 trailer: " Welcome to the future. Life is good; but it can be better. And why shouldn't it be ? All you need is to want. Think about having everything you've always wanted... Now, I take what I want in return" Interesting looking movie. Lassos and rides the lightning, gorgeous legs, and a New Order soundtrack. Gotta see it if Covid ever lets up.

Well that settles it. I'm an agnostic atheist. ( I'm a science guy, we're never 100% sure of anything )

If it was a Catholic school, the priest/friars or nuns would have been able to tell the story of how the Bishop of Rome, Leo I, was sent out to meet Attila and negotiate a truce, thus sparing the sacking of Rome. ( not actually true, Attila was low on supplies, but the Catholic Church does like to take credit ) PS the way it's going, this will be off-topic split off also.

No library, no internet, and no other teachers who could reference Attila ? Must have really sucked !

Not exactly. Ideas are protected by 'free' speech. Inciting people to dangerous actions, is not. ( yelling "FIRE" in a theater incites a stampede and people get hurt )

Open up his textbook and say "This guy here on page 78" Then ask the teacher to take some remedial History courses.

I would think anybody does. M Pence wasn't too bad, but in his debate, D Trump came across as a guest on the Jerry Springer Show.

As an example of 'free' speech, you can use any of the above words, "Fire', "Shoot" and "Poison Gas" in a sentence, so as to express an idea. "I should be able to kill SNAKES by SHOOTing, POISON GAS or FIRE" See, no problem.

Speaking is an 'active' process. You do it to convey YOUR ideas. Listening is a 'passive' process. It interprets others' ideas. So again, if you want to convey your ideas accurately, the onus is on you.

There are certain rules that make it less of a 'crap-shoot', but you can definitely go to certain parts of my city, and speaking proper English, you will not be understood, or, at best, misinterpreted. So, yes the onus is on you to use the 'best' tool available to convey your thoughts. ( sometimes that might mean drawing pictures, or pointing to a picture/reference of Attila the Hun in a textbook )

Me neither; I don't believe you...

Words mean whatever the listener interprets them to mean. If the listener interprets them incorrectly, the speaker has used the wrong words to convey his ideas to his listener. EG. I may use a French word correctly, but if you don't understand French, I an using the incorrect 'tool'.

I guess we'll have to wait and see if other detectors ( other locations ) pick up these decays from hi energy particles. Or maybe the Earth is like Swiss cheese and there are 'holes' everywhere .

Well, since Markus has expressed his desire to join a Monastery, I think that definitely answers the OP question. But, some words to Markus... ( no offence meant, just trying to lighten the mood ) A young monk arrives at the monastery. He is assigned to helping the other monks in copying the old laws of the church by hand. He notices, however, that all of the monks are copying from copies, not from the original manuscript. So, the new monk goes to the head monk to question this, pointing out that if someone made even a small error in the first copy, it would never be picked up! In fact, that error would be continued in all of the subsequent copies. The head monk, says, “You make a good point, my son.” He goes down into the dark caves underneath the monastery where the original manuscripts are held in a locked vault. Hours go by and nobody sees the head monk. The young monk gets worried and goes down to look for him. He sees him banging his head against the wall and wailing. “We missed the R! We missed the R! We missed the R!” “Father!” cries the young monk. “What’s wrong?” The head monk with tears in his eyes replies, “The word is CELEBRATE!"

It would be extremely boring. You do realize the scale of the solar system, and the time lapse to show any appreciable change on a very minute scale ? ( it will take about a week for Mars to move 1/100 of its orbit. never mind the outer planets )