Realistically,time travel via cryogenic freezing,or some sort of stasis to prevent aging shouldn't be a hard problem to solve. Right? Basically, just put someone into a stasis and wake them up in a hundred years. From their perspective it will feel like they time traveled, but really their body was just frozen for a hundred years.It seems like an easier problem to solve than FTL travel, right?If this was an option, would you take it?
>>17044767People are still affected by time even in stasis. It would kill them to be in a body without a window.
I miss IQ threads.
>>17044767sex
Perhaps more like a ultrasonic sleep chamber..
>>17044767It's not that simple. When you wake up, you get cancer instantly from all that accumulated radiation damage to your tissue
>>17044767Sophie a cute
>>17044767cyrogenic sleep is not a real thing yet. there's no guarantee that you will wake up normally after a decade, let alone a century. heck, i wouldn't even trust them to freeze me up for a year, with the current tech that we have. also, let's assume that you're going to the nearest star. let's say the trip takes about 10000 years (being extremely generous here), there's still a problem with energy and maintenance for your spaceship. that means either someone has to wake up every few months or so, and you still need to think about energy sources in literally nothingness.
>>17044767>cryogenic freezingI don't get it. what do you find so special about keeping all of those atoms together, if they're not doing what they would at higher temperature? it's pretty much retarded isn't it?for example, let's say I visit my friend in another country on the other side of the Earth, and he built an interesting device, let's keep it simple, say a trebouchet. which I find intriguing.now, I could take it with me back home. or i could just take it all apart, save all the data about it on a piece of paper, and take that piece of paper with me, and like once home I assemble the same trebouchet from the data on the paper, but with like different atoms since they're fungible anyway. I expect the end result to function the same (if I am sane).so, why do you insist in shipping over the trebouchet? it's just bloat, can get damage on the way. you can keep the data safe for a very long time, but not the trebouchet itself. just seems like a religiously motivated move to insist on transporting the trebouchet.inb4>but how do I....engineering issue, not scientific one
>>17046094>engineering issueThe eternal cry of the midwit.
>>17046095>can't into atom masonry many such casesand like with almost everything, you merely need a good aproximation of it, since function arises at higher levels. it's not like you're atomically identical one second to the other, yet somehow you're still the same moron posting retarded shit. strange innit thoughbeit
>>17046094a trebouchet doesn't have a privileged position because it's an inanimate object, so the ship of theseus problem doesn't matter for trebouchets, any one trebouchet is as good as another, the same can't be said for beings with consciousness
>>17046224>a trebouchet doesn't have a privileged positioncitation?>so the ship of theseus problem doesn't matter for trebouchetsit's literally about a fucking ship>any one trebouchet is as good as anothercorrect>the same can't be said for beings with consciousnesscitation?
