If you were to hypothetically construct a time machine and travel back to a date in time...

No. How did you even get to that conclusion from what user said?

Plenty of reasons travel into the past is impossible, but that's not one of them.
Asking "what was _here_ in the year 1985" is a meaningless question. It implies the existence of Absolute Space; something that everybody can measure and get the same result.

How does it imply Absolute Space when OP is asking if the Earth would be in the same position in one year in comparison to another year?

>if the Earth would be in the same position in one year in comparison to another year?
What do you mean by "same position"?. The problem is that just because the position of the Earth relative to the Sun is the same, doesn't mean when you travel back in time you will end up on the Earth. Because the entire solar system is moving together in the galaxy, which itself is moving relative to other things. So the only way to guarantee you'll actually pop into existence back on the Earth is to specify a precise location in the universe(somewhere on the Earth right now and in the past) and correct for it. This is impossible due to the fact no preferential frame exists that could be used as a reference frame, locations can only be specified using arbitrary frames which leads to the problem mentioned earlier.

Any universe where time travel was possible, would be destroyed at its inception by a literally infinite series of temporal paradoxes.

That really depends on how time travel actually works. There are several different models of time travel which don't produce paradoxes.

>There are several different models of time travel which don't produce paradoxes.

can you really call it time travel if it doesn't violate causality?

>can you really call it time travel if it doesn't violate causality?
Sure you can, there's literally nothing wrong with causality loops.

then what starts the loop?

The Novikov Self Consistency Principle violates causality, and it doesn't permit paradoxes.

That depends on what model you're talking about.

Or try this -- in any universe in which
1) Time travel is possible, and
2) it is possible to change the past
NO time machine will be invented.

Or at least, it will shake out that way-- as the timeline of that universe will change and change and change until it hits a configurations where it just happens that no time machine is invented, and then will be locked there and can't change, since there are no time travelers to fuck with it.

Doesn't really matter the paradox only exists from an internal frame of reference or if you insist on treating time as linear, which would be problematic if you're saying that from your delorean. Like being a flat earther on the ISS.
Or am I making wrong assumptions?

>The Novikov Self Consistency Principle violates causality, and it doesn't permit paradoxes.

From the wiki
"but somehow circumstances will dictate that you cannot behave in a way that leads to a paradox in time."

>somehow

Jesus, man.... someone wrote this?

>That depends on what model you're talking about.

Any of the bullshit relativity based math that treats time as a dimension instead of a scalar, desu.

>Doesn't really matter the paradox only exists from an internal frame of reference

So, basically what you are saying, is that time travel loops are possible, so long as the thing that is time traveling is in no way connected to the rest of the universe?

Like, you can travel back in time, but only in a pocket dimension?

Conversely IF time travel does exist, it must be stable because the universe hasn't imploded in paradox.
I also have a pet theory about Hitler actually being a time-traveler trap. Like hiding behind hitler are some undercover temporal-police waiting for the next guy to come back in time to try and kill/help Hitler and prevent screwing up the timelines irreparably.

>Conversely IF time travel does exist, it must be stable because the universe hasn't imploded in paradox.

OR, time travel is a bullshit concept created by mathematicians with too much free time.

>Jesus, man.... someone wrote this?
The wikipeda article is a terrible. Read "The Jinn of the time machine", Novikov does a pretty good job of explaining it.
thelifeofpsi.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Lossev-Novikov-1992.pdf

>The wikipeda article is a terrible.

I agree.

>Read "The Jinn of the time machine", Novikov does a pretty good job of explaining it.

Thanks, I'll take a look.

okay, I took a quick gander, and it still seems that his argument is "Because Reasons"

Is this what causes the Mandela Effect?

So in other words if Doc Brown tried to go back in time to 1985 then there would be a strong risk that his DeLorean would be floating in space on the other end where the Earth will move to in 2017?

No, that's just forgetfulness.

Do you have any evidence of that? Remember that there is no such thing as scientific fact so we cannot be so sure that this is what the Mandela Effect really is.

The Mandela Effect is actually caused when two universes collide. I like to think of this like two galaxies colliding. Considering that we're very small in our universe everything always gets so much larger so you have to be a fucking idiot to deny the existence of multiverse in an even large multiverse. And when you have that many universes in one place then only a dumbass would deny that the chances of collisions among those universes will be scarce.

Try to disagree with me.

You can't.

I've observed people being forgetful, yes.

That's not evidence, you moron. And the fact that several people who never had any contact with one another having the same false memories is enough to merit a scientific investigation.

People exposed to the same stimuli may have similar reactions to it. Big whoop.

I bet you're an atheist too. Typical.

>The Mandela Effect is actually caused when two universes collide.

I thought it was when someone tried to rewrite the history books.

The common theory accepted by many believers of it is that universes collide and that is why somethings change. For instance, the famous Berenstein Bears thing, AVGN managed to explain this perfectly. One universe took Berenstain Bears and the other too Berenstein Bears even though both universes remember them differently. The now Berenstain universe remembers it Berenstein and the now Berenstein universe remembers it Berenstain. James Wolfe just took it further and suggested there was a Bloodstain universe which naturally means there would be a Bloodstein universe. It would be hilarious if Rick & Morty took the piss out of this Mandela Effect shit though since they are well in the position to mock it.

Dude.... for serious...

The "Mandella Effect" is a bullshit, pop-sci "Theory" to try to cover up "Operation Red Fox" which is an orwellian tactic of finding history books, and changing them after the fact.

Can you prove that?

>Can you prove that?

So, you are saying that two universes colliding is more believable than tyrants rewriting history?

Why do you keep trying to avoid proving your case?

>Why do you keep trying to avoid proving your case?

proving that tyrants rewrite history?

>So, you are saying that two universes colliding is more believable than tyrants rewriting history?
You know those aren't the only two explanations, right?
For example, you could have a world where both:
A) No universes collided to cause changes in the timeline and
B) No conspiracy to rewrite all references to "Berenstain Bears" as "Berenstein Bears" happened
In this example, the explanation would be that -stain is a much less common name suffix than -stein, which resulted in lots of people automatically reading it as -stein incorrectly and being surprised later in life when the modern internet became a thing and someone was able to bring up the distinction in a way everyone else could look at and comment on.
Also there might have been cases in the past of people in charge of writing the name in the TV guide or on the TV guide channel incorrectly as -stein (or similar mistakes but pursuant to the book instead of the TV show), which would contribute to lots of other people seeing that mistake and thinking that's just how it was spelled in reality.
There would be other explanations for other common mismatches between memory and reality too, like how people have written that they thought there was a "Shazam" movie which they describe as suspiciously similar to the real life "Kazaam" movie. This one makes sense because lots of people are exposed to the word "Shazam" one way or another as a derivative of the comic book wizard / the word the wizard let Billy use to turn into Captain Marvel. "Kazaam" in contrast is a less common word without that same history, so again you'd have lots of people reading something in their heads using the more common similar sounding but wrong variant on an actual work's title.
It really amounts to a demonstration of how we don't really "read" in the sense we think we do where each word is scanned in like a machine in some exact photographic kind of way; we're more fuzzy / probabilistic and assumptive.

>No conspiracy to rewrite all references to "Berenstain Bears" as "Berenstein Bears" happened

it was a test of their history rewriting tactics... they wanted to see the public's reaction to it.

Time travel is possible and been done before. But the problem turns out to be the thing you point at. The universe itself can be moving as well. We lost all travelers so far and don't know where they are. The possibility of anyone being alive is close to non

That's a hypothetical motivation for why someone might do something like that, but where's the evidence anyone actually did do something like that?
It would take a lot of work to do something like change all or even just most references of Berenstein to Berenstain and there wouldn't take any work at all for people to just read it wrong when they were younger due to -stein being a much more common name suffix, so there should be a lot of evidence to support that extreme claim.

>We lost all travelers so far and don't know where they are.

And yet you somehow know that they traveled in time?

sounds like you just vaporized a few people.

>it still seems that his argument is "Because Reasons"
I'm pretty sure the reason Novikov Self Consistency Principle would apply is that it accounts for the detail people tend to overlook when imagining time travel scenarios which is that anything done by a time traveler in the past will have already happened before the future time traveler initiates his time travel.
e.g. Imagine you time traveled back to the year 1854 and smothered Vincent van Gogh to death while he was still an infant.
OK, so why did you grow up knowing about Vincent van Gogh as a famous painter who lived to be 37?
If you say it's because you hadn't yet murdered him, I'd say that's not true because if you time traveled to 1854 and murdered him that year, then that means he was murdered in 1854 before you were even born.
The fact the cause of his death in 1854 originated from the future doesn't change the fact his death was in 1854. It's not like 1854 was waiting for 2017 to happen before the murder could take place, that would be nonsensical. No time elapses between 1854 in that moment "before" the time travel happens and 1854 in that moment "after" the time travel happens. It's the same moment in time. Whether you travel to that moment from 2017, or from 3017, not a single second of difference would be had for when that event takes place.
So necessarily, if an event in 1854 caused by a time traveler exists, it can only exist because it already happened that way in 1854 long before the time traveler causing the event was ever born. If that weren't the case then you would need to explain why 1854 would happen both one way and another way, and this explanation can't be that "you didn't do it yet the first time around" because "yet" is a word for describing an elapse in time and there is no elapse in time involved here. If 1854 needed to wait until 2017 before the event would happen, then the event is no longer even happening at 1854, it's happening in 2017.

That would be awful.
It would also not help recruiting new candidates. But it is 99.99999% sure there was a transit.
It's really hard to find out the motion of the know universe. But that it moves is what we know now.

The question is : relative to where?

>That would be awful.
>It would also not help recruiting new candidates.

you mean as opposed to "Merely" displacing them several billion miles from earth so they suffocate in the cold vacuum of space?

Yeah, I can see how that would make people want to test it out even less......

ITT: people who don't know that dinosaurs were invented by the CIA to discourage research into time travel

>ITT: people who don't know that dinosaurs were invented by the CIA to discourage research into time travel

Nah... the CIA just made the time travel meme to cover up their mind reading system.

if you THINK about doing something they don't want, they will be waiting for you because they read your mind from sattelites in space.

And they try to pass it off as "Time travel"

IT's sort of juvenile, actually.