Any time travelers ?

[TimeFlipper]

If anyone wants to convince me that they are a "genuine" time-traveller it is very simple..
I want to see three headlines from three different newspapers seven days in the future, and if they turn out to be true, then i would shout it from the hill tops that we really do have a "genuine" time-traveller...No ifs or buts, that is my test..end of.. ..

Then he would be shot dead.

Nope, the wannabe time-traveller is simply another fake..

 

[JimmyD]

Here is the way I see it. The_Observer has access to real knowledge from the future. I suspect he may be just some employee at a facility where the technology exists. Of course apparently he has some down time where he can goof off on the internet. You can see from the date/time stamp on the posts in question that he provided the answer to my test within one minute of my posting the test. I can assure you that I have had my test question on my mind for the last six months. Lussorio couldn't pass the test. And he went to great lengths to try and weasel his way out of it too. I'm just saying it was like The_Observer just punched in his query to a temporal computer and then immediately posted the answer to a question I didn't ask until around 20 minutes later.

Why don't you give The_Observer the same test I did? That would at least prove to you that he isn't bound by the rules of cause and effect that we are.

I don't care if Observer is a time traveler or not. I have already seen plenty and need no convincing. And that is beside the point I am trying to make.

Consider this; Whatever form the evidence or proof, it is going to be concerning points in time. It is going to be a verifiable time line and something verifiable being 'out of place' or 'moved', which could be either tangible or intangible.

It can only be verifiable to those who are witness to all relative points of truth. Let me say that again just to drill it in; It can only be verifiable to those who are witness to all relative points of truth. Everyone else cannot see all that is necessary to discern the difference.

You and observer are claiming, not proving anything, and because everyone besides you two are dependent upon taking your word for it that you did not contrive. If it is going to be proven, it will be done so that everyone can verify all pertinent points of truth/circumstance. In other words; That time stamp means squat to everyone but you because it does not adequately explain the impossibility of conspiracy. We are left with the open question of if you planned it that way, and because that would be so simple and easy to do.

Tl;dr: You dont believe The Observer and Einstein. Geez this thread took too long to read.

That is not necessarily the point. It is not so much about whether or not I believe them. I have seen enough about time travel that I no longer have to question if it is real or not. It is not about being convinced. So what if he is or isn't? It makes little difference to me in a general sense.

The point I am trying to convey is more in regard to the concept of how it functions and what actually qualifies as proof. There is a way to do so involving reason and circumstance, but there are certain qualifications/criteria/parameters that must be met in order for it to actually be proof/evidence. And it can vary according to perspective and whatnot.

I am sorry that you find the finer points of conceptualizing time travel to be so tiring. I'll try to make it more entertaining and summarized from now on, just for you.

The above point can be summarized as; It don't work like that if you want to prove it to everyone.

 

[Miscellaneous]

I don't care if Observer is a time traveler or not. I have already seen plenty and need no convincing. And that is beside the point I am trying to make.

Consider this; Whatever form the evidence or proof, it is going to be concerning points in time. It is going to be a verifiable time line and something verifiable being 'out of place' or 'moved', which could be either tangible or intangible.

It can only be verifiable to those who are witness to all relative points of truth. Let me say that again just to drill it in; It can only be verifiable to those who are witness to all relative points of truth. Everyone else cannot see all that is necessary to discern the difference.

You and observer are claiming, not proving anything, and because everyone besides you two are dependent upon taking your word for it that you did not contrive. If it is going to be proven, it will be done so that everyone can verify all pertinent points of truth/circumstance. In other words; That time stamp means squat to everyone but you because it does not adequately explain the impossibility of conspiracy. We are left with the open question of if you planned it that way, and because that would be so simple and easy to do.

Tl;dr: You dont believe The Observer and Einstein. Geez this thread took too long to read.

That is not necessarily the point. It is not so much about whether or not I believe them. I have seen enough about time travel that I no longer have to question if it is real or not. It is not about being convinced. So what if he is or isn't? It makes little difference to me in a general sense.

The point I am trying to convey is more in regard to the concept of how it functions and what actually qualifies as proof. There is a way to do so involving reason and circumstance, but there are certain qualifications/criteria/parameters that must be met in order for it to actually be proof/evidence. And it can vary according to perspective and whatnot.

I am sorry that you find the finer points of conceptualizing time travel to be so tiring. I'll try to make it more entertaining and summarized from now on, just for you.

The above point can be summarized as; It don't work like that if you want to prove it to everyone.

So you don't care if time travel is real or not and yet you still need proof?

 

[JimmyD]

Tl;dr: You dont believe The Observer and Einstein. Geez this thread took too long to read.

That is not necessarily the point. It is not so much about whether or not I believe them. I have seen enough about time travel that I no longer have to question if it is real or not. It is not about being convinced. So what if he is or isn't? It makes little difference to me in a general sense.

The point I am trying to convey is more in regard to the concept of how it functions and what actually qualifies as proof. There is a way to do so involving reason and circumstance, but there are certain qualifications/criteria/parameters that must be met in order for it to actually be proof/evidence. And it can vary according to perspective and whatnot.

I am sorry that you find the finer points of conceptualizing time travel to be so tiring. I'll try to make it more entertaining and summarized from now on, just for you.

The above point can be summarized as; It don't work like that if you want to prove it to everyone.

So you don't care if time travel is real or not and yet you still need proof?

I don't care whether or not Observer is a time traveler, nor do I need proof. Again, my focus is more about how it functions and discrepancies with what people consider proof.

 

[Pix3l_P0w3r]

I don't care whether or not Observer is a time traveler, nor do I need proof. Again, my focus is more about how it functions and discrepancies with what people consider proof.

What one considers proof is up to oneself. Skepticism can be held to the point that you won't believe it even if you time travel, until you spend enough time there that it convinces you. But even so, isn't it POSSIBLE the machine you went through did something else to you and you didn't time travel, but just think you did? What is PROOF? It's such a controversial subject that it's possible we need to advance science and our understanding of the universe itself before we can fully accept or comprehend time travel as a nation. That still leaves the possibility it does exist in secret and only certain chosen ones are allowed to know. But due to supposed secrecy, knowing it would not be a joyous thing for long. Heavy secrets take a toll on the soul. That's why you see all of these old guys near their death bed, start to admit certain events taking place that were myth or rumor, so they can clear their conscience. In their old age, they don't have much left to fear, because their end is near.

 

[TimeFlipper]

Fortunately for me personally, i possess what is called a "spidey sense" which in simple terminology means "gut feeling" .
I offer to anybody who comes on here claiming to be a time traveller, the chance to actually meet me in person and perform a very simple test, which to date no one has done yet.. (all their excuses for NOT doing it come flooding out)..

No disrespect intended to you, but i dont think anybody needs (according to you) the necessity of an "advanced science, or the understanding of the universe itself ", to know when a person is simply an attention seeker...We have had people on here saying that a very simple "crystal radio" (nowadays known as a Quantum Crystal Radio!!) can transport someone back in time to a specific era, or they will use an empty Pringles Can with a small amount of wire wrapped around it to do the same thing..

"Common Sense" which all of us possess negates any need for universal understanding or advanced science, but of course that is my own personal opinion, and as per usual i stick to it ..

 

[JimmyD]

What one considers proof is up to oneself.

Skepticism can be held to the point that you won't believe it even if you time travel, until you spend enough time there that it convinces you.

I generally agree. Short of an actual open real-time demonstration of time travel, it's not necessarily proof or is going to satisfy a lot of people. However, I will argue that it can indeed be 'proven' by means of evidence and logic. But it's not exactly elemental or easy.

It's such a controversial subject that it's possible we need to advance science and our understanding of the universe itself before we can fully accept or comprehend time travel as a nation.

It's provable, and problematic, ..mostly because people are generally evil selfish and stupid. And anything done "as a nation" is evil and dangerous. People are selfish and stupid, especially when organized in large numbers with weapons and a cause. NEVER EVER allow a government possess time travel. That is as bad as allowing a religious sect to have it. Same difference.

That still leaves the possibility it does exist in secret and only certain chosen ones are allowed to know.

It does. And it looks like the world is in a heap of shit that it can't even see.