Paul asked:
is this your thought experiment or someone elses?
I have now sorted out where the idea came from. It was Sean Carroll’s “From Eternity to Here” (P132). Possibly you consider Sean’s science to be inferior to yours, but we mere amateurs have to question everything, indiscriminately, if we are to have any hope of reaching an understanding.
However when I tell you that you have strayed out of what I call science, I would appreciate if you do not try and argue what I call science.
I would not presume to argue with your views/beliefs. If my attempts to work out how your expression of those views/beliefs might relate to my question make you uncomfortable, that is unfortunate, but I cannot, and will not pretend to understand a connection I cannot see, just to protect another's delicate sensativity.
So again I say to you, your OP is not a valid or suitable post for a science forum it fails the basic rules. I am not the moderator on this pseudo science forum AR2 is, so I can only ask and you may well select to ignore me and say it is science and I will ignore the thread like the other stuff here I find as not science.
Perhaps I should take the OP to another science forum and see what the response is.
This is more-or-less my starting point. There are too many impossibilities to allow physical time reversal to work.
Could this be clearer?
Perhaps I should have highlighted that latter sentence. I didn't because I prefer to do my fellow posters the courtesy of assuming they can understand without being "shouted" at.
