>>11881228>>11881207>>11881200not the other anon, but you obviously haven't thought about this very hard...
>And that's exactly why it proves time travel impossible. There needs to be a way for both to fit in the same model if want to show at least a theoretical possibility.this is just incoherent, i have no idea what you're asserting.
>Repeat until the whole universe is crowded with bags of gold and there's no space anymore, just an endless stack of bags of goldit would take energy to time travel in your scenario
>you can change the heath death of the universethis is fictional mumbo jumbo and has nothing to do with thermodynamics or statistical mechanics. it's not part of the theory, it's an imagined consequence of a poor understanding of the terms "heat" and "entropy" and how probability distributions work.
>Don't you see how this is retarded?Yes, I do.
> A thing that is, can't stop being and then just start being again at a different moment; matter is not created or destroyed, and energy isn't either.Things are created and destroyed all the time, ever heard of matter/antimatter anihilation? Matter and energy interconvert all the time, and there are no fixed essenses that are immutable in the physical world. In all likelihood, it'd take much more energy to go get material from the future than that matter would itself contain (according to E=mc^2) where most would be lost to heat. There is no violation of conservation of energy/mass.
Now, whether there is a workable mechaism for travelling forward or backward in time arbitrarily is not my point here, it's that thermodynamics has nothing to do with time. It was a theory developed to explain the work done by expanding macroscopic gases in steam engines, it's not directly applicable to microscopic phenomona.
And, in the end, it literally cannot be used with time. That is the field of kinetics, and if you don't know the difference, then just shut the fuck up and go read a book.
