Regarding John Titor and his validity.

Kind hello to all here.

Having regarded the "John Titor" material in detail, especially the wealth of information that appears to contrare the proposition, I have a question for you.

Assuming one from a "future" may wish to avoid causality by revealing events to be, how could this person prove he is from a "future"?

Eagerly anticipating your replies.

I dont think theres any way to "prove" one is from the future. Having read the John Titor materials myself a long time ago It certainly is an interesting story. I guess we would have to wait to see if what he predicted comes to pass, so we can look back and examine what he wrote. Other than that I dont see how you could prove such a thing.

I agree. However, I am of a mind that positions the Titor material as online hoax. Having that, I feel we cannot regard his material as a means for proving much.

But for the purpose of a discussion here, by what metric might we regard a similar situation and establish validity?

Thank you.

There is always a way to prove someone is from the future. How you can do it is if he can predict future events such as political elections, sporting events, boxing fights, natural disasters, future NASA missions and dates etc.

Where there is a will there is a way.

And if you find that he really is from the future, go to Las Vegas as soon as possible.

[edit on 28-12-2006 by Low Orbit]

Causality concerns preclude a legitimate "future" person from revealing the events you mentioned. Of additional possibility is that such person may have no practical knowledge of near-term period details. Would you know the stock market activity for 24/10/1929 if asked on 22/10/1929?

How else could a "future" person find himself confirmed?

Excellent question...

Is it possible to bring an artifact from the future and carbon date it? Would the artifact still retain the additional age it garnered between today and the time our time traveller retrieved it?

In other words, say our temporal traveller had a coin, the minting date on the coin establishes its age fairly well, if our time traveller was from several decades in the future (centuries would be better) could you not "date" the coin and establish it is actually several decades/centuries older than it "should be"?

Springer...

A theory of promise but two imagined problems.

One - our person of the "future" may not have experience with "coin", though we can suppose he would come prepared to function in contemporary society.

Two - would temporal travel alter the atomic properties as to make such a test inconclusive? (One for the physicists)


In the case of Titor, he was reluctant to engage in physical communication or contact and limit his communication such as we have here. If a person of the "future" were similarly concerned or limited, what then?

[edit on 28-12-2006 by Albert Steronia]

I don't think you can carbon date something with that much accuracy. It is used for things thousands/millions of years old not for things decades old.

Originally posted by Springer
Excellent question...

Is it possible to bring an artifact from the future and carbon date it? Would the artifact still retain the additional age it garnered between today and the time our time traveller retrieved it?

In other words, say our temporal traveller had a coin, the minting date on the coin establishes its age fairly well, if our time traveller was from several decades in the future (centuries would be better) could you not "date" the coin and establish it is actually several decades/centuries older than it "should be"?

Springer...

Springer,I wouldn't think so. It would seem to me that we would have to go by the date on the coin. After all, as far as I know, there are no coins being minted with the year 2085 on them as yet. The carbon dating would probably show a relatively recent age to it.

personally i think john titor is a fraud, he states that a civil war will start in the us in 2005, 2005 came and went with no civil war

Hmm intersting topic.Myself I think Titor is a hoax.But back to topic.One way is if the time traveler had the time machine with him.He could show it on national tv.Have a panel of scientific experts examine it to see if it is real.Or bring back a piece of tech from the future and have experts examine it.Now some people my say these two ways might upset cause and effect and the free lunch paradox but since more and more scientists think parallel universes exist you might be able to get away with it.If you are the time traveler you could go back in time to a past version of you and have dna tests done.As someone else on here said if there is a will there is a way.

Finally one thing that gets me is that it is said if the time traveler comes back to the past he automatically changes things with him just being there so the timeline won't be exactly the same as when he left.So basically he can make vague comments about the future and pass them off as proof.Since they are so vague they are almost gaureented to fit.

Whomever played the role of Mr. Titor expected to be finished with the hoax before the time of his "predictions" came to pass.

A person of the "future" would be deeply concerned with causality as the parallel (quantum cat) theories are vague ideas to explain inexplicable. There can be no national TV coverage or broad exposure unless the "future" person is interested in causing catastrophic change in timeline.

Fiction defines for us the idea of a "time machine" but reality may differ as time is a plane, travel my not require apparatus as you know it.

Seems to be a conundrum, proving one originates from that which has not happened.

[edit on 28-12-2006 by Albert Steronia]

My thought is that if he is not a hoax, then he has succeded in "salting" time.
The credence possible is the functionality of the IBM computer he described, it has been proven that it is unique as he described.

That was impressive.

Aside from ATS, consider the possibilty that he was hard at work elswhere influencing current and past events to avoid his 2038 reality.

Is it possible that given the theory that every action, every decision, creates another "branch" of possible futures; one may conclude that His apparently false/unconfirmed predictions would also play a role in shaping whatever future he may or may not be here to manipulate.

If one considers this a valid hypothesis, the possibilities become almost mathematically impossible to conceive.

Semper

Originally posted by semperfortis


If one considers this a valid hypothesis, the possibilities become almost mathematically impossible to conceive.

Semper

I agree, which is why I don't buy the branching out of possible realities.

The branching out concept also negates the concept of travelling backwards thru time to affect the future, whats the point when all possible outcomes have aleady happened?

peace out

[edit on 12/28/06 by Shadowbear]

And yet,

With Infinite possibilities, ALL Possible outcomes could not possibly have happened (Hence Infinite), so going back would/could cause an effect... The very act of going back in time would create an all together new environment and thus new divisions in the possibility concept.

Enough to drive one crazy.... LOL

Semper

Originally posted by Springer

In other words, say our temporal traveller had a coin, the minting date on the coin establishes its age fairly well, if our time traveller was from several decades in the future (centuries would be better) could you not "date" the coin and establish it is actually several decades/centuries older than it "should be"?

Springer...

I think you can only Carbon date stuff that was at some point alive (assuming we are doing carbon14 dating).

www.scienceagainstevolution.org...

Cosmic radiation strikes the atmosphere all the time. Every once in a while, a negatively charged electron strikes one of the positively charged protons in a nitrogen atom. The positive and negative charges cancel out, turning the proton into a neutron. The electron is so light compared to a proton or a neutron that it doesn’t change the weight of the proton. So, this nitrogen atom that used to have seven protons and seven neutrons now has six protons and eight neutrons and still has 14 atomic mass units (6 + 8 = 14). Since it has six protons, it is no longer nitrogen. It is carbon. Specifically, it is 14C.

Assuming that the time traveler brought something to present day that was alive at some point in the future and underwent all those years of cosmic radiation, cabon dating 'should' show the object to be older than present day. Not sure of the +- accuracy there, though.

Originally posted by Springer
Excellent question...

Is it possible to bring an artifact from the future and carbon date it? Would the artifact still retain the additional age it garnered between today and the time our time traveller retrieved it?

Yes.

In other words, say our temporal traveller had a coin, the minting date on the coin establishes its age fairly well, if our time traveller was from several decades in the future (centuries would be better) could you not "date" the coin and establish it is actually several decades/centuries older than it "should be"?

Yes.

So, anyone have a quarter?



[edit on 29-12-2006 by crisko]

(sigh)

Originally posted by Albert Steronia
Kind hello to all here.

Having regarded the "John Titor" material in detail, especially the wealth of information that appears to contrare the proposition, I have a question for you.

Assuming one from a "future" may wish to avoid causality by revealing events to be, how could this person prove he is from a "future"?

Well, by actually having a story that makes sense and does offer some predictions of the future.

The "Uinux is going to die in 2036" was a rip-off of the Y2K hysteria and even stuipder than the Y2K freakouts (because nobody uses that version of Unix any more.) Every "proof" he gave was more absurd than the last.

Someone really from the future would be more like "A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court" -- they would know workable techniques that hadn't been developed yet (the art of roping was not known in the Middle Ages) and would know accurately things that would be discovered. For instance, if I went back in time about 80 years, I could talk about Pluto and its not-then-discovered moon, Charon... and could predict the planet would be called Pluto. I could mention the rise of a dangerous man named Adolph Hitler, etc, etc.

Luckily, the hoaxers tend to be pretty unsophisticated. "Aussie Guy" was easily dismissed except by the most gullible. Same with other "time travel" hoaxes.

Would not such a person from the "future" have concern over causality and refrain from revealing unimportant future details?

Shall we assume such a person has a specific but important message. What then can be done to prove validity without straying beyond the subject matter of his message?

For example, I may want to warn you that naming the outermost planet "Achilles" would somehow cause disaster, and "Pluto" is a much better name. What you you do to ensure such a warning was received?