Time travel thought experiment game

[Fefe Santa]

Give me the year I'll tell you who the next president will be.
At max I'll only have to do 4 years locked up!

 

[moriheru]

Why are you acting like the time machine disapears? Just show him your time machine...(hope I havn't wound up in some dumm paradox, nope i shouldn't of done...)
Might get into problems with the evil goverment...

 

[mfb]

Give me the year I'll tell you who the next president will be.

For all countries? ;)
For a specific one like the US, each election there are hundreds of correct predictions. Usually the number of relevant candidates is not so large, guessing the correct one out of 10-20 is not enough evidence.

 

[WWGD]

@derek10: How many events in the early 19th century do you remember? How many of them would get known to the people around you? It does not help to predict some random event somewhere in the world if no one ever learns about it.
If you know the precise date and place in advance, it is much easier of course.

Hi In 1879 a person called Einstein will born and change science with a thing called relativity that explains blahblahblah...
Hi, in 1889 a person called Hitler will born and will lead to a new ideology and war that will cause blahblahblah
To name a few cases and happened at, I would think there are more but I know zero history lol at first they would think I am mad until those events happen (and are almost universally known)[/QUOTE]

But it will take too many years for those predictions to become true; at least 30 years for each.

 

[The Un-Observer]

For all countries? ;)
For a specific one like the US, each election there are hundreds of correct predictions. Usually the number of relevant candidates is not so large, guessing the correct one out of 10-20 is not enough evidence.

If it is the past, and I know my American history, I know for a fact who's next

 

[WWGD]

If it is the past, and I know my American history, I know for a fact who's next

Who's that, Hillary Bush or Jeb Clinton?

 

[WWGD]

Who's that, Hillary Bush or Jeb Clinton?

I wonder if I am the first one here to quote myself, but the 2016 election , if it turns out to be a Bush-Clinton one, will itself be a time machine back to the 1990's. I vote for fresh blood.

 

[Medicol]

Why are you acting like the time machine disapears? Just show him your time machine...(hope I havn't wound up in some dumm paradox, nope i shouldn't of done...)

The current time machine actually has a bunch of potential bugs. No stress tests seem done on it yet, may be never. I am not even allowed to view the test plan (i.e what and how something is to be tested), I only see the result progress they did on it. How sad !
Those guys' attitude is always to belittle others' knowledge and skills.

Might get into problems with the evil goverment...

I have no idea. Mine isn't one if you don't violate any business laws. If you borrow someone else's shelter, chances you get into trouble with may be high and even from the guy himself! :D
New York people taught me to be always careful with even who I trust ! Good luck!

 

[JonDE]

If it is the past, and I know my American history, I know for a fact who's next

So you have e ery president memorized in order? Even then it doesn't really matter. Let's go back exactly 200 years like a lot of posters are doing. The next president would be James Monroe. A founding father, a former senator and governor who is currently the secretary of state and secretary of war. I don't think anyone would be the least bit surprised by that pick.

 

[DaveC426913]

Seems to me everyone's suggesting predicting things occurring in time. What about things occurring in space? (not space space, I mean location).

"I can bring you to the site of the fabled missing X, that will otherwise not be discovered for another Y years."

Problem is, I can't think of any missing X's that have been discovered in the last century that would make a compelling case.

Tut's tomb? Noah's Ark? Jimmy Hoffa? Britney's virginity?

 

[progyan]

Would surely be a good thing if I'd end up in some deserted area,since I'd be naked.

 

[progyan]

Well...on second thought,I could end up in some rich man's house while the latter's outside.

 

[Medicol]

...
Tut's tomb? Noah's Ark? Jimmy Hoffa? Britney's virginity?

Thanks Dave, I can only imagine the first 2 . Tut's tomb is always my favorite, now and later. It seems like my mood is with the 3rd at the moment ? while the 4th is completely unknown to me. I like Noah; his story is good but kind of limited and boring in the long term. :D

 

[progyan]

I'd rather stick to my own bathroom instead of using someone else's.

 

[BruceW]

A few people have mentioned these things already, but I think the best ways would be to make something that uses electricity (if you play with radios etc this would be easier but still take a long time). Or if you knew a lot of 19th century history, you could make predictions. I would have trouble with both of these things, so probably wouldn't be able to convince anyone that I was from the future. I would have a weird way of speaking, and would talk about weird stuff no-one has heard of. But maybe this is not enough to convince anyone...

 

[mainliner]

My SO showed me this on reddit and we had fun with it. If you were sent back to the early 19th century naked and alone how would you convince someone that you were from the future and not crazy? No tricks allowed (meaning you can't pull a raygun from your colon). Let's hear it.

show people your " i love 1989" tatto

 

[DaveC426913]

I think a qualifier should be put on this thought experiment:

What could you do to convince someone?

There's a lot of talk about building electrical devices. Obviously, if a electric motor repairman were the one sent back, he could do that. Then again, if a nuclear physicist were sent back, the answer would be different.

But my ability to do so is pretty rudimentary. Building an electric motor or a reactor is beyond my ability.

 

[Medicol]

show people your " i love 1989" tatto

If you couldn't pull the raygun out of your colon, then just leave it there. Physicists know well how to define diversity! :D

 

[Laurie Elise]

There's also the language problem. One can go back in time to some place where people speak your language, but they won't know a lot of vocabulary that you'd know, and they'd use a lot of vocabulary that has now been forgotten. But in the early 19th century, the language's phonology, grammar, and basic vocabulary would not be very different. One would have a noticeable accent, but one could easily make oneself understood.

It gets worse the farther back in time, and if one goes back far enough, it's effectively a foreign language. History of the English language - Wikipedia has some nice examples.

Not only is there a language problem, and there would be indeed, since words even though they may be pronounced the same, have taken on different meanings. Body language was also, to perhaps small, but important degree, different I would wonder how to explain the tattoos. Or the "zippers" of surgical incisions. I suppose body piercing doesn't count if you're completely naked.

 

[Tobias Funke]

If a naked man came up to me today and built a DC electric motor from scratch I'd assume he was from the future and become his devoted follower.

 

[mfb]

I would assume he came from the past... :D.

 

[Tobias Funke]

It's also possible that if you showed them future technology, they would suspect that you were actually from the past and stole it from a real time traveler from the future that you robbed. They will if they watch Star Trek, that is. And then they'd be from the future too and you could be BFFs!

 

[lpetrich]

Seems like many of us are proposing demonstration of superior knowledge, myself included. Ideally, this knowledge has to be something unknown to the people one's living among, yet accessible with their technology. It may be difficult to do it with something observational, since the people may have observed it already. But one may have more success with conceptual breakthroughs. The progress of science has not been purely empirical; it has often depended on conceptual breakthroughs. Examples:

The difference between a chemical compound and a mixture may be self-evident to most of us, but it was unknown before about 1799. It was about then that Joseph Proust started some experiments on metal rusting, and he showed that metals combine with oxygen in definite proportions -- a certain mass of oxygen for each unit mass of each metallic element. Expressed in the language of that time, the Law of definite proportions states that some mixtures have definite proportions while others do not. That was controversial back then, with some chemists rejecting it, but it eventually became accepted. Once one has discovered a lot of definite-proportions combinations, one may move on from there to an empirically-based version of atomism, as John Dalton did. I've looked for what might qualify as empirical support for pre-Dalton atomism, but it's been hard for me to find.

Johannes Kepler tried valiantly to fit Mars's orbit to a circle, but he failed miserably. Tycho Brahe's observations were some of the best that anyone had ever made, so observational error was also out. So he resorted to some shapes that seemed almost impossibly ugly compared to a circle, succeeding with an ellipse.

Albert Einstein showed that Henrik Lorentz's ether or physically preferred reference frame was physically meaningless. One could redefine it arbitrarily without changing anything observable.

Hermann Minkowski showed that special relativity treated time as much like another space dimension, with Lorentz boosts being a sort of rotation of space and time.

When Thomas Huxley learned about Charles Darwin's idea of natural selection, he said about it "How extremely stupid not to have thought of that!" (http://www.ucl.ac.uk/sts/staff/cain/projects/huxley).

 

[lpetrich]

A very obvious place for conceptual breakthroughs is mathematics, and until very recently, doing theoretical mathematics research has not required advanced technology. In fact, if one is enough of a math geek, one may have committed a lot of math to memory, and one will be able to take it along in one's travels in this thought experiment.

So all you need to do is show your superior command of math. You'd need to find someone who would appreciate it, however, since lots of people have lots of trouble with any math more advanced than simple arithmetic, and often that also.

Let's say that you could do that in the Greco-Roman world. You'd have a heck of a lot to talk about. Place systems, zero, negative numbers, algebra, ... Since geometry is how they understood mathematics, you'd have to explain zero and negative numbers in geometrical ways. Zero = coincident points. Negative numbers = give a line a direction and go in reverse of that direction.

More recently, you'd do more advanced mathematics, but by the late 19th cy., one would have to do some very arcane math to get ahead of the state of the art.

 

[John M. Carr]

Kinda reminds me,

[Source: http://abstrusegoose.com/526]

*cough* TARDIS *cough* :D

 

[jedishrfu]

To the OP, so when are you going to tell us the answer? We may need to know it in the future.

 

[dragoneyes001]

easiest way to get peoples attention: use the shape of a wing and lift to create a glider long before its time 12 hrs of hang time with only a roll down a hill to launch would outperform any doubters expectations.
making the structure of wood with mesh coated in glue to create a crude form of fiberglass with today's gliders body shape and aerodynamics solves 99% of the problems the 19th century attempts had.

want investors? build a hang glider Bamboo and the same crude fiberglass will make the structure plenty strong enough and the rest is fabric hemp denim would be more than strong enough and was quite abundant in the 19th century. let them see you fly for a few miles on little more than a kite and they will fund a real glider.the point is we know what and where thermals are it makes it much easier to make a hang glider work when you do.

next its time for a combustion engine may as well really screw the future inventors a simple carburetor and a straight six block would get that going pretty quick. an acid battery is no problem and making a crude alternator would freak them out at that time too spark plugs would be funny for the inexperienced. most of the rest is metal work you could get a blacksmith making parts.
ethanol can replace gasoline at first. use the engine to power a machine shop and voila you've just changed the industrial age rather drastically. A lathe would advance things way beyond the times makes proper cylinders and pistons let a blacksmith make the oil rings ...

or if you want to stay only on the ground show someone how to create a ten speed bicycle the sprockets and gear changer are definitely doable in the 19th century the cables would be the hardest part because of the metallurgy needed but that should be surmountable like making the changer rod driven.

or if you want to play crazy scientist in the 19th century mix salt peter and sugar into a mold and create model rockets to impress the masses and probably get killed as a warlock or witch depending on where you are.

 

[dragoneyes001]

I think a qualifier should be put on this thought experiment:

What could you do to convince someone?

There's a lot of talk about building electrical devices. Obviously, if a electric motor repairman were the one sent back, he could do that. Then again, if a nuclear physicist were sent back, the answer would be different.

But my ability to do so is pretty rudimentary. Building an electric motor or a reactor is beyond my ability.

build a simple battery A lemon two nails and some copper wire keep it really simple but you can show them an electric light even if it barely lasts a minute.

speaking of lemons here's a sure fire way to be burnt at the stake: show them how to use lemon juice to create invisible ink then simply use a candle to expose what's written on the blank paper.

 

[OmCheeto]

...ld a hang glider Bamboo and th...entury mix salt peter and su...ere you are.

Kirk vs Gorn

ps. You forgot the diamonds, sulfur, and charcoal.

pps. What the hell is saltpeter anyways? google google google. hmmmm...

"The earliest known complete purification process for potassium nitrate was outlined in 1270 by the chemist and engineer Hasan al-Rammah of Syria in his book ..."​

1270? Good grief! Sounds old school.

And where do you get it?

"A major natural source of potassium nitrate was the deposits crystallizing from cave walls and the accumulations of bat guano in caves. Extraction is accomplished by immersing the guano in water for a day, filtering, and harvesting the crystals in the filtered water. Traditionally, guano was the source used in Laos for the manufacture of gunpowder for Bang Fai rockets."​

Bat poop!

I can't speak for why anyone else hangs out at PF, but I know why I do. :)

 

[nitsuj]

That's a point; I'm not keen on the idea of being in a time which didn't understand the importance of clean drinking water, let alone have antiseptics or antibiotics!

Lynching;

"And yet it moves..." I couldn't imagine the frustration of being in such a position regardless of subject.