>>40864971
Ok. If you were to say, "travel to the past" in your own line, you'd be violating causality, thus "breaking spacetime". However, intuition tells us such a fabric must be unbreakable, or just the mere -thought- of breaking spacetime could send ripples across probability and ensure it happens -if- it wasn't virtually indestructible in the first place. So we can get rid of causality's need d'etre based in that thought alone, at least for this excercise. So, say, if I wanted to go to the past, Me and everything related to me existing in that timeline is absolutely erased, as if I had never existed: Lower and higher dimentional probabilities mend the "errors" with the current one, like slides of cheese, making a solid plausible reality for all observers to enjoy (hence, also Mandela effects). So, in the new timeline, in the desired coordintes of the 4thdimentional manifold of space, you are plopped, fresh and all. You are -technically- violating causality, but that's ok, again: Higher/lower probability fields come to to your rescue and fill the voids, and there you are, -sewn seamlessly into the new fabric, as expected.- Only now the Flintstones are called "The Flinstones".

Inb4 timespace drift:
>Such advanced hardware wouldn't have a triangulation locking system
>Let alone the ability to shift phase into more basic dimensions and literally travel throughout a LITERAL straight string of timespace