Marshall Barnes, R&D Eng Challenges Self-Proclaimed Time "Expert" To Public Debate After Harassment

If every quantim particle wasn't in exactly the same state/position as at the desired past (future) moment…well then it wouldn't be the same moment in time.

And your arrival, as the time traveller, would automatically contaminate this 'moment' reconfiguration, hence rendering it as always wrong…and hence not the moment on time you were seeking.

So, apart from you needed you know the entire universal quantum configuration at precisely the moment you wish to go back (or forward) to, you would also have to have the ability to transfer each individual quantum particle to its past (or future) state.

Marshall Barnes

If that were true the same thing would count for parallel universe decoherence and it doesn't. There isn't any "returning" involved in the process. Everything involved is a copy of that time, and logic and common sense has not one whit to do with it. Logic and common sense depend upon common knowledge and there isn't any of that as you get involved with science, particuarly quantum mechanics and temporal mechanics. If you don't know it, then you can't fake it.

So you're talking about the time traveler's arrival contaminating a moment's reconfiguration shows that you're faking it because when that moment happens, the time traveler is a part of it, just like in quantum mechanics the observer becomes part of the experimental result, or didn't you know that?

Furthermore, there's no need to know the entire universal quantum configuration because that Participatory Universe takes care of that part. There is no difference in this operation, from triggering new parallel universe copies by doing retrocausal experiments, except the knowledge in how to make it happen so that a new copy of a past is caused into existence as opposed to a new copy of the present with a different past. Once that is figured out, and it is being worked on right now, then time travel is a done deal.

Ciao, Manhattan…

Simon Morley

"..triggering new parallel universe"….hahaha.

After "20 years+ research" you still haven't understood time, and rely on fantastical pseudo-mythology to cover your tracks.

Oh dear.
______________

"Mind you, I had links to the experiments and related information in my initial comment when Morley attacked me, proving he's a moron. What he called 'fantastical pseudo-mythology' included the work of John  Archibald Wheeler and Hugh Everett, showing he's out of his depth and just thinks he can get away with attacking me because he doesn't know who I am. But by doing that, he's attacking them".

Morley's book, What is Time?: The answer to the 'ultimate paradox', has two reviews on Amazon.com - one, a 5 star by fellow time denier Matthew Marsden, and another - a one star by a woman named Sheila who wasn't impressed at all (see https://www.amazon.com/product-reviews/B00JKTDMT8/ref=cm_cr_dp_d_cmps_btm?ie=UTF8&reviewerType=all_reviews ). Her review reflects the reality of Morley's work.

Marshall is author of, Paradox Lost: The True Geometries of Time Travel, which also deals with the nature of time but doesn't waste pages arguing over semantics - it goes straight to the nature of time as a concept in physics. (see http://www.blurb.com/b/5622324-paradox-lost-the-public-edition).

Marshall has agreed to arrange the debate to take place next year, giving each man the opportunity to prepare and make arrangements, however, Morley has been told he has until Friday the 15th at 3PM EST to accept the challenge or be branded a coward, following rules of Code Duello.

"If Morley accepts the debate, he should be aware under these circumstances, where his harassment and insults were beyond the pale of anything considered fair game within academic circles, he can expect the same mercies that Achilles showed Hector at the walls of Troy."