What Evidence Do You Need?

[Num7]

What do you think would be the best evidence a time traveler can provide to show you he's / she's without a doubt legit? Would you actually need the time traveler to show you that his/her time machine works?

Here's a quick list of examples I thought about:

• A photo or a video that is obviously from another time period.
• An object that comes from the future
• The proof of a timeline shift
• The time traveler showing you his time machine
• The time traveler bringing you to another time period with his machine
• A prediction that is spot on
• Information that couldn't be acquired by other means

These items are in no particular order, but some of them are obviously more convincing than others... or are they? Let's face it, the time traveler bringing you back in time with him is a pretty easy one. But if the TT can't show his machine to anyone for instance... what happens then? He has to show us stuff and tell us information.

What kind of evidence can a time traveler provide us with that would be convincing enough? Are time travelers showing up online condemned to be unconvincing?

What can they do?

 

[Einstein]

I would suggest the major newspaper headlines for the next three days.

 

[McCrapper]

Of all topics on this forum, time travel is the hardest to believe. You can have any individual with high intelligence and greater imagination pretend to be a time traveler and make any elaborate story they please. You would physically have to prove it me. Pick me back to back trifectas at the track, pick back to back super bowl champs with their score, take me on a trip to the past/future with your time machine, predict something that will happen that is impossible to see coming whilst being with me. Honestly, bigfoot frolics on these forums far more often than actual time travelers....

Of course, if i didnt wanna be proved wrong or if i was a total skeptic i wouldnt be here.

 

[Physics vs Jaden]

I was gonna say the same exact thing Einstein, except for just the next day. Not all 3 days.

 

[TimeFlipper]

I would suggest the major newspaper headlines for the next three days.

I would definitely agree with Einstein 100%...And maybe we should use that for the ultimate TT test, with no excuses like iam not allowed to show you these, which is always the stock answer used lol

 

[timecore]

A time travel could show two objects.One that is of the future of that object and another one that is of the present of that object.And then knick the one that is of the objects present.Then that will show up on the other object.

 

[AAA]

A time machine demonstration is the most reliable proof, of course. Next to that would be information that couldn't be acquired by any other means. Most listed are examples of such. Photographic evidence is unreliable.

 

[TimeFlipper]

A time machine demonstration is the most reliable proof, of course. Next to that would be information that couldn't be acquired by any other means. Most listed are examples of such. Photographic evidence is unreliable.

The thing is, the person with the time machine could be 1000s of miles away from you, and you cant rely on any videos for proof...Einsteins idea of the 3 newspaper headlines is still tops

 

[AAA]

A time machine demonstration is the most reliable proof, of course. Next to that would be information that couldn't be acquired by any other means. Most listed are examples of such. Photographic evidence is unreliable.

The thing is, the person with the time machine could be 1000s of miles away from you, and you cant rely on any videos for proof...Einsteins idea of the 3 newspaper headlines is still tops

I am unfamiliar with the 3 newspaper headlines example.

Aside from an actual demonstration, everything else is ultimately a form of information traveling through time. The medium of conveyance can be almost anything under varying circumstances. The reason I say photographic evidence is unreliable is that it can be manipulated.

You would have to make sure to authenticate the integrity of the photograph along with whatever information was on said photograph. You can't base your authentication on assuming it is authentic because it is a captured image or recording, etc.

Ultimately, it is still about the information contained in the photograph relative to the time line. The photograph is simply a medium of conveyance. ...one that would need authentication. In order to prove it, you have to essentially authenticate all the relevant events and circumstances.

And then you have to consider that definitively proving anything is relative to the witnesses/participants. That is to say that unless they are witness to all events and circumstances, all necessary qualifiers of authenticating the proofs, there is always a question of authenticity. In other words, it only counts to those involved to watch it all.

It gets complicated.

 

[Physics vs Jaden]

No, what would prove it would be to take a picture of the front cover and back cover of tomorrows newspaper and say what the first story inside the newspaper will be.