3 ms·

There's this star called R Scuti: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_Scuti https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_Scuti * The light from it is variable, * This variati

There's this star called R Scuti: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_Scuti https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_Scuti * The light from it is variable, * This variation is continuous, not a rare event, * It's 4,000 light years away, so the butterfly effect is irrelevant because the light is already on its way, * It's chaotic and unpredictable. Basically a reliable stream of random data. I guess the only problem is that you need to know what observations of its light levels were, throughout the 80s, if the records even exist. Edit: "The AAVSO International Database currently contains over 110,000 observations of this erratic star spanning nearly a century of activity." There you go, that should provide a thousand measurements to base a key on in any given year.

benj111 2y ago
"It's 4,000 light years away, so the butterfly effect is irrelevant" Wouldn't time travel imply that you could go to the source 4000 years ago, so for this scheme you'd need to get the data at time of creation, not at arrival. Further, once you start having time traveling all bets are off anyway. You could go back to stop the star forming. But by that point the hypothetical question becomes impossible to answer
Llamamoe 2y ago
> * It's 4,000 light years away, so the butterfly effect is irrelevant because the light is already on its way, The butterfly effect might still apply to the earth's atmosphere and the scientists/engineers maintaining snd operating the observatories, though. But this could likely be compensated for by cutting off some of the last digits of the measured values.