ydoaPs

it makes perfect sense. you can't send it if you don't paint it.

it isn't a paradox. you are making the events circular again. you go: 1)paint the painting again 2)send it back in time 3)get it 4)1 again, but you don't paint it it is supposed to go: 1)you get it 2)you paint it 3)you send it back in time or 1)you don't get it 2)you don't paint it 3)you don't send it back in time

you send the painting

i do not understand what you are asking

a few things: stop listening to the radio kill britney spears

moments cannot repeat and they cannot change. they certainly cannot do both. edit: what is the IoP?

herme3, why don't you score your deep knowledge? http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html edit: do it for all of your threads where you have been told it is rubbish and you say "you don't understand" or "that isn't the answer i'm looking for"

There is no "second" 20/3/05.

that is my point. you have to take it in order cronologically.

you are looking in the wrong order again. you had to paint it BEFORE you sent it

i think i do. here is how your cronology occurs: 1)you send the painting back in time 2)you get the painting 3)the first event again, but you decide not to send it since time does not repeat and moments cannot change, here is how it goes: A: 1)you get the painting 2)you send the painting back in time or, B: 1)you don't get the painting 2)you don't send it back in time

me= no good with astronomy and such

what makes it different from all of the other roughly pluto-sized objects in the oort cloud?

and it therefore isn't a paradox

you either send it or you don't, you can't do both.

follow it in cronological order. moments do not change. either you sent it or you didn't.

no, you don't. it isn't possible

your scenario can't happen then, if you don't send it then you don't send it.

in your scenario, you have no clue who sent it or when. it could have been sent after your died or it could have been stolen.

no, since you have the painting, you know it gets sent back to you. if you didn't send it back, someone else must have.

danny, in the order in which they happened. herme3, you use blatantly wrong information.

no, it is his constant use of blatant lies and logical fallacys you are travelling into the future as we sit.

again, you are looking at the events in the wrong order.

no, it is quite acccurate.