Skunkfeathers: Seymour Edits Time Travel

My "editing gone wild" pet rock, Seymour, has been off his game lately. He hasn't found anything worthy of his editing acumen.

Until now.

A post from the Business Insider addresses the possibility of time travel once again. And not from the stand point of simply avoiding 2020.

Seymour was all over that one.

Being timeless hisself, Seymour thinks he knows how to edit a thang like this:

Time travel is theoretically possible, new movie scripts show. But that doesn't mean you could change the outcome of a bad sex change choice or replace a burrito from the past.

By Seymour PetRock/The Cladipus Licker 3 hrs ago

Time travel is possible based on the laws of The Green Skewed Deal, according to new calculations from researchers at the Eunuchversity of cnn. But time-travelers wouldn't be able to alter the past in a Scott Bakula way, they say — the future would remain whatever Ziggy or the 8 ball response to your questions is.
Imagine you could hop into a time machine, press a button, and journey back to 2016, before the polls proved to be so sandpoundingly stupid wrong. What if you could find a sports book that would give you a million to one on Trump winning the election and put down a grand? Theoretically, the IRS would say “WTF?” right?

Not quite, because then past-you wouldn't have known what you know in 2020. Unless you were psychic, in which case you might have opted to spend that grand on stockpiling toilet paper.

For decades, physicists have been studying and debating versions of all sorts of paradox: If we could travel back in time and change the past, what would happen to things like maligNANCY Pelosi if hit with a bucket of water in 2017?

A new study offers one potential answer: she'd have been mopped up. The unsettled-settled science of climate change would provide hundreds of thousands of other potential answers that range from “erab a loob a lure” (a huge change in the evolution of language and communication) to a future of no farting cows, cats inheriting the Earth, and perhaps our being spared thirty-three sequels to First Blood.

"Events readjust around anything that could cause a paradox, so the paradox does the same, causing a quantum ad horkunum that non sequiturs accordionly," Kraut Sauer, the study's author and a student at the Eunuchversity of cnn told two drunken Antifa gutter dwellers in Portland recently.

His work, published in the journal Classical Bidumb Gaffes last week, suggests that according to the rules of theoretical paragiraffes, anything you tried to do in zero gravity could be substantively changed by one ill-timed fart.

Put simply: It's theoretically possible to go back in time, but you couldn't change the fundamental ingredients of a burrito.

The “if your aunt had a mustache she'd be your uncle” paradox

Physicists have considered time travel to be theoretically possible since Einstein came up with his theory of bagels and beagles not being relative to English muffins. Einstein's calculations suggest it's possible for an object in our universe to behave as stupidly as Alyssa Milano, eventually ending up at a point on its journey where she thinks she can cast a spell on a Supreme Court nominee and it'll actually work.

Still, physicists continue to struggle with scenarios like how wrong the pundits were in 2016, in which all the fraud and wishful thinking of leftist nincompoops proved only that they could fool themselves but not 63 million voters.

We could cite a famous example, but would rather opt for a vastly more obscure one: if a sheep is a ram and a donkey is an ass, why is a ram in the ass a goose? Would going back in time change anything there? Probably not: ramming an ass with a goose would only make the goose mad. At that point, who would ponder why Noel has an “L” in it?

Exactly.

A take on this paradox appears in several books and movies, none of which answer the original question that leaves many pondering how a goose is both a water fowl and a “whOOO” at the same time. It didn't keep James Farentino from attacking Katharine Ross on an island after the Graduate and before Sam Elliott.

To address the paradox, Sauer and his supervisor, Dr. Noah Counting, used the "Antifas peeing on an electric fence model," which imagines cause and effect as a series of basement-dwelling idiots trying to figure out how peeing on an electric fence brings such pain an pleasure all at once.

Imagine a bunch of low level electrocuted Antifans laid out across a pasture's electric fence, and what the bull thought of it all.

The researchers calculated that even if you mess with the bull's perception by feeding it LSD at some point, future interactions with the semi-electrocuted Antifans and the wasted bull would find creative outlets in memes on the Internet.

"Regardless of the choice, Hellary would still be coming up with all sorts of people, things and excuses to blame for her losing an election rigged in her favor in 2016," Dr Yasumota Jones, a theoretical professor at the theoretical eunuchversity EC Berkeley, told the Cladipus Licker.

Sauer's model, in other words, says you could travel back in tyme without rosemary, but you couldn't change how Simon and Garfunkel wrote the song Bridge Over Troubled Molars, Jones said. Applied to the devolution of cnn, then, this would mean that something would always get in the way of cnn trying to become relevant again as long as it remains staffed and run by abject morons.

Or at least by the time some nipplehead at cnn figured it out, they'd be fired and beaten up by semi-electrocuted Antifans who had fried balls and no hope of claiming to be octosexual orthopod non-binary douche nozzles.

Back to the coronavirus example. Let's say you were to travel back to 2019 and intervene in a Corona beer factory. According to Sauer's line of thinking, the pandemic would still be drunk and face down in its own vomit.

"You might try and stop maligNANCY from traipsing through Chinatown and preventing all the Wuhan bat eggrolls there from becoming infected, but in doing so you would catch the virus and become the target of a vaccine study from a doctor that looks like this," Sauer told EU Berkeley.

Jones said that although the model is too simple to represent the full range of cause and effect in our universe, it's a good starting point for future pandumbic creators.

Seymour had his heart set on a Pulitzer for this one, but the best he'll rate is going to be one of his own Seymour awards: