A Test For Time Travellers

In reply to:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

he's much more likely to have hear of Prof Ron Mallet, Stephen Hawking

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Have these people ever created any machine at all?
Click to expand...
Professor Ron Mallet was, last time I heard, working on a device that uses frame dragging created by a helical array of lasers. There is some considerable theoretical argument over whether the device will ever work.....or is just the time travel equivalent of cold fusion.

Even if the device does work, it cannot transmit people, just messages. Neither would the device be able to transmit or receive signals from any time before it is switched on.

 
Here's another angle, and one that may have been used before:

You come up with this "test", register again a few months from now under a different name, respond to "your" test, ( or have somebody else do it ); and we have a new claimant attempting to pull off a hoax.

I am "not" saying that "you" have such intentions, however, it would be something considered IF anyone posts the information you have laid out within your test.

However unlikely it may be that someone might have trouble collecting the information you require as time traveler proof, it can still be done.

That someone could post fireball sightings prior to them happening, and provide the information as listed on the AMS Report...would be "impossible" to complete, unless they actually saw the AMS Report, first.

 
However unlikely it may be that someone might have trouble collecting the information you require as time traveler proof, it can still be done.
Click to expand...
The main problem is that predictions of future events always end up being incorrect and then explained away by 'divergence' in the timelines. Plus, predictions are invariably some years away and I can't be bothered waiting that long.
So the way round that is to get the alleged time traveller to provide hidden or lost information from the past. Preferably information that is only accesible in the past and no longer in the current time.

The issue then becomes creating a test that is 100% infallible....and which cannot itself be hoaxed. Of course, the person running the test....being in possession of the 'lost' information...could always hoax the whole thing themselves. Or...he might incorrectly assume that nobody else has the information currently.

However....I think my primary point here is that when it comes to any such test.....I really don't think there will be any takers. Largely because anyone who did pass such a test would very likely be asked to perform another one...and so on. I really don't think the hoaxers would want to set such a precedent.

 
Keven Warwick might have some good ideas to debunk alot of things by getting to the 'source'

In theory you would think that one could combine any other science with his research to create... well you tell me?

 
Twilight,

The issue of "divergence" between timelines (and no one has ever defined the meaning of what a "timeline" is relative to another "timeline") is that what they are really talking about is quantum mechanics. We already know about the issue of uncertainty, though I have to suspect that few people do any research into the physics involved. They tend to guess at the meaning and aren't too concerned about the reasons behind the principle as it relates to its meaning and derivation.

If we take a volume of space and infuse it with a gas and compact ourselves so that we are small enough to actually see the individual molecules of the gas (disregarding the real physics involved in doing this) all we see is a chaotic world. It is totally ruled by chaos and quantum uncertainty. Yet if we back away and go back to our "real" perspective of the world around us we see order and, at least to some extent, predictable outcomes for the system. The idea of alternate realities and undefined alternate "timelines" from that perspective makes no sense. Our world, the world that we actually perceive, is quite predictable.

The question that is avoided on sites like this is why, in a world that is at its base ruled by quantum physics, do we perceive it as being ruled by Newtonian physics?

 
Darby,

If we take a volume of space and infuse it with a gas and compact ourselves so that we are small enough to actually see the individual molecules of the gas (disregarding the real physics involved in doing this) all we see is a chaotic world. It is totally ruled by chaos and quantum uncertainty. Yet if we back away and go back to our "real" perspective of the world around us we see order and, at least to some extent, predictable outcomes for the system.
Click to expand...
I don't know if I have ever read such an excellent and compact description of both classical and statistical thermodynamics, and what they mean to our human perception, as you have offered here. Very well done, sir.
In one domain we perceive things as chaotic, non-linear, quantum, or statistical. It is no coincidence that the mathematics of statistics & probabiliy helps us greatly in understanding what we are perceiving non-linearly. (perhaps subconsciously)

In the other domain we perceive things as ordered, linear, deterministic, or directly-predictable. It is no coincidence that a "classically Newtonian" set of mathematics (i.e. calculus of variations) can accurately model these, our linear perceptions of our universe.

Clearly, these two views of physics are complementary. Together they represent the "+" and "-" poles of just another polar(+/-) variable (i.e. thermodynamic state). Any resolution of polar opposite energies always define a "surface interface" (3-D? 4-D?) between those two polar field effects.

Is it possible, perhaps, that "where we live" is defined by this interface? I like to call this interface "The Integrated Matrix of Massive Space-Time." Gets me thinking about many things... Thanks again, Darby.

RMT

 
The issue then becomes creating a test that is 100% infallible....and which cannot itself be hoaxed.
Click to expand...
The time traveler would be asked to travel into the future, after his future death, and bring back his dead body, the DNA of which would be compared to his living body. A little to macabre for you? :devil:
P.S. Not to mention his fingerprints, scars, tattoo's and so on.

Ah, but there's a catch. If you put the dead body in a chair facing you as you were being tattooed, would a tattoo magically appear on the body? It's hard to see that it would. But in that case it's not your future body, is it? On the other hand it would be identical in all other respects.

 
I don't know if I have ever read such an excellent and compact description of both classical and statistical thermodynamics, and what they mean to our human perception, as you have offered here. Very well done, sir.
Click to expand...
Thank you, Ray.

 
The main problem is that predictions of future events always end up being incorrect and then explained away by 'divergence' in the timelines. Plus, predictions are invariably some years away and I can't be bothered waiting that long.So the way round that is to get the alleged time traveller to provide hidden or lost information from the past. Preferably information that is only accesible in the past and no longer in the current time.

The issue then becomes creating a test that is 100% infallible....and which cannot itself be hoaxed. Of course, the person running the test....being in possession of the 'lost' information...could always hoax the whole thing themselves. Or...he might incorrectly assume that nobody else has the information currently.

However....I think my primary point here is that when it comes to any such test.....I really don't think there will be any takers. Largely because anyone who did pass such a test would very likely be asked to perform another one...and so on. I really don't think the hoaxers would want to set such a precedent.
Click to expand...
I see a lot that is incorrect with your post. For one you assume that information from the past can,t be known somehow. That is a fallacy. Like the websight thing. There are sights on the internet that archive old sites. At one of those sites you could visit a websight as it looked in the past. It is a fallacy to assume old or lost information can not be recovered there for if someone can find it they must be a time traveler.
Creating a 100% infallable test that can not be hoaxed for time travelers. That is a fallacy there is no such thing and I don,t think you can prove that it exist.

Not being any takers because hoaxers don,t want to set such a precedent. And that they would not want to be asked to take another test. Now you are assuming you know what time travel is like and how it would be even though you yourself have never time traveled and they the time travelers would do tricks for you. That is just plain arragant.

 
I see a lot that is incorrect with your post. For one you assume that information from the past can,t be known somehow. That is a fallacy. Like the websight thing. There are sights on the internet that archive old sites. At one of those sites you could visit a websight as it looked in the past. It is a fallacy to assume old or lost information can not be recovered there for if someone can find it they must be a time traveler.
Click to expand...
No..the bots that collected and archived old websites would have had to apply for membership in order to access the member list. You cannot access the member list without BEING a member. One rather anal policy that the manager of FSA had was that of not accepting membership from people who did not fill in the 'Why I Want To Join' bit.....something a bit hard for a bot to do.
I have searched for the data myself. There is no archive of the member list at any time.....let alone at October 2004 which is the time I want. And what IS available gives a very confusing picture.....as people who are not managers appear to be responding to requests to the management ( that is one of the twists in this test ). Also, until I devised this test..I had myself forgotten who all the managers and assistant managers were and I'm still not 100% certain ( though I'd be certain on seeing a screen print ). It's highly unlikely that any other member would remember either......and also there is yet another twist in the test that would reveal if someone was actually seeing the web page or simply remembering.

That is why I want a screen print. The screen print of the member list ( which shows the managers in bold at the top ) is THE key element of the test. Not simply a list of member names but a screen print of the web page complete with the URL ( obviously not some archive URL but the original one ).

Simple for a REAL time traveller. You cannot access the member list without being a member....and you cannot become a member without being in 2004 !

Not being any takers because hoaxers don,t want to set such a precedent. And that they would not want to be asked to take another test. Now you are assuming you know what time travel is like and how it would be even though you yourself have never time traveled and they the time travelers would do tricks for you. That is just plain arragant.
Click to expand...
LOL ! Yes.....I guess all the alleged time travellers are FAR too busy in Photoshop or splicing video cuts, or creating fake documents in Word, or putting together their 'time machine' for a good pic...not to mention travelling back to 1975 to get an IBM 5100.........to be bothered with something soooo trivial and mundane as cheking out a web site in 2004 !

 
... even though you yourself have never time traveled and they the time travelers would do tricks for you.
Click to expand...
At this stage, I don't believe anyone could say with 100 percent accuracy what a time traveler would or would not do.
You "yourself" have never time traveled and they the time travelers just "might" do tricks.

 
The issue of "divergence" between timelines (and no one has ever defined the meaning of what a "timeline" is relative to another "timeline") is that what they are really talking about is quantum mechanics. We already know about the issue of uncertainty, though I have to suspect that few people do any research into the physics involved. They tend to guess at the meaning and aren't too concerned about the reasons behind the principle as it relates to its meaning and derivation.
Click to expand...
Neither is it that clear whether the 'Many Worlds' wave function interpretation of Quantum Mechanics is the same thing as parallel universes in a multiverse. Intuitively one senses that they are......but there is no logical reason for such a deduction other than that if they are not, it truly confounds things ( Hmm...a multimultiverse ).

If we take a volume of space and infuse it with a gas and compact ourselves so that we are small enough to actually see the individual molecules of the gas (disregarding the real physics involved in doing this) all we see is a chaotic world. It is totally ruled by chaos and quantum uncertainty. Yet if we back away and go back to our "real" perspective of the world around us we see order and, at least to some extent, predictable outcomes for the system. The idea of alternate realities and undefined alternate "timelines" from that perspective makes no sense. Our world, the world that we actually perceive, is quite predictable
Click to expand...
For me the real essence can be seen in Young's double slit experiment. One might expect interference patterns with large numbers of photons. But....the interference pattern is still there if one fires a single photon through the device. Totally counter-intuitive.....and how can a photon interfere with itself. This is the entire basis of the 'wave function collapse' from the Copenhagen interpretation.
However...it is ( still.......80 years on from Copenhagen ) arguable whether the wave is merely a probability wave that collapses into a single reality on observation.....or whether the wave represents multiple alternate realities each of which physically 'exist' in some sense. The 'many worlds' interpretation is still just that, a possible interpretation, and awaits confirmation. It is kinda essential for all this 'timeline' business.

 
At this stage, I don't believe anyone could say with 100 percent accuracy what a time traveler would or would not do.
Click to expand...
We can say with 100% certainty that any time traveller visiting this forum knows for certain that 'prove it !' will be a response.
Any rational time traveller from 2036 would WANT to prove it. I mean...what is the POINT of travelling back from 2036 and announcing " Hey folks...I'm a time traveller"......if one already knows before one even departed, that those folks all just ended up laughing their socks off.

If I were a time traveller from 2036...I'd go out of my way to offer proof. I would not otherwise bother travelling.

 
IF a time traveler goes through the trouble of obtaining an internet provider source, routing through proxies, registering an e-mail address, and then going through the registration process here at Time Travel Institute to say as you mentioned " Here I am ..." ; then they should indeed desire to provide some proof that is worthy of consideration to US here at Time Travel Institute.

Any time traveler that has any intelligence, would certainly read through the site before making a decision "to" post here, and would know what they were in for by doing so.

And if it was some sort of entertainment on their part...to mess with the natives...by responding to a test would certainly accomplish that goal.

To those that are scoffing at the idea of "any" test...I have yet to see any suggestions as how "they" would determine if any particular claimant "here" at TTI is "real" or just a "hoax" ?

Unless they are part of the "I believe it because they said so" clan.

Even by seeking flaws in the current time traveler claims, is applying "test's" to the claim's anyway. We are actually providing a service to the claimants, and providing them with a method to "cut to the chase" as it were, and avoid lengthy threads of questions, and get to the meat and potatoes of their time traveling experience(s).

IF any time travler was of the mindset to not even bother with a forum such as this...then there would be no need for a time travel claims section at all, which at one time did NOT exist, but had to be created due to the volume of claimants, and more importantly, the length of the claimants threads as they attempted to convince everyone they were indeed "real" time travelers.

This is all about making life easier for the "real" time travelers, and seperating them from the fakes.

:)

 
This is all about making life easier for the "real" time travelers, and seperating them from the fakes.
Click to expand...
Couldn't agree more. Instead of time travellers turning up and immediately announcing " Obama is the Antichrist and you are all doomed "..........I demand and expect their first post to say something like " I am a time traveller from 2036, and here is some convincing proof and I can provide more ".

 
Here is a suggestion for a test for time travelers.

Bible prophecy has to fulfill 4 criteria to be considered true prophecy. I think since time travelers claim to have knowledge of future events, they should be able to meet the same criteria.

1. It can be proved the prediction was made before the event happened.

2. There is a time gap between the prediction and when it actually comes to pass. (No educated guesses based on the signs of the times.)

3. The event must be something unlikely to happen. (Rules out coincidences)

4. The person involved is unable to manipulate the fulfillment of the event.

I would add for the time travel situation:

5. Time divergence must be explained and proved or don't bother to use it in your claim.

If self proclaimed time travelers aren't prepared to fulfill the above requests, please find another place to pass your time and ask yourself if deceiving people is a desireable hobby.

 
It's strange how this many categories, essentially two (TT discussion, TT claims) - are the most active.

When I think of time travel and dicussions of the universes complex gravitational patterns, it makes me think of the higher dimensions having to come into play - and if that's the case, then the other categories should be buzzing because one would think the collective collaboration and tie-ins of possibility would be immense?

I think lately it's been taken, (even when I put question marks) - 'that's what I believe', in any sense, I'm genuinely asking hypotheticals, that's all ^^

ps

When I mentioned RMT's idea for testing coming into play, I guess I was putting it in 'reverse' - I meant to say 'how do we not know there are parallel universes where that wouldn't be there, and how to have absolute control over that not being the case?'.

I totally believe his 'test' could work - I'm just not sure if there are other possibilities involved as well or if that is greatly unlikely?

 
Whoever implied that?

As well for clarification - are we quoting John in terms of 'many antichrists' or the general term to mean a single entity?

Or did you mean Friedrich Nietzsche's description?

Though I'm not sure how much releveance this has in TT Claims - I have a feeling RMT might be moving this thread shortly :)

ps

That was just a general curious question in context to the term, I'm not referencing the President.

 
I believe a time traveler who was the real deal would not expose himself on the internet. If time travel exist, I don't think they want people to know about it.

 
Back
Top