61

The Lounge / Re: A way for our time traveler to prove himself

« on: August 26, 2015, 10:27:07 AM »

The idea of multiple time dimensions is already being considered, specifically curled up ones.  It should also be noted that the higs field has already been proven to exist with a 1 in 1,000,000 probability of results being a coincidence, and it's clear that it is what causes mass.

Well, I can tell you the future of the time dimension considerations.

Ah, Higgs, I wasn't sure if that had been arrived at yet. The Higgs field is what defines a spatial dimension. I'm used to numered notation (Higgs-1, Higgs-2...) defining each dimension, but the field you refer to is likely just Higgs-1, 2 and 3. With no Higgs field, space doesn't exist.
One of the things that makes time dimensions unique is their lack of this: existence in time does not imply mass (at least, not mass as we know it. There is an analogous Okabe field, but that is a lengthy topic: it was actually part of a primary theory on where the universe as a whole originated, in my time, though that was still just a hypothesis).

62

The Lounge / Re: A way for our time traveler to prove himself

« on: August 26, 2015, 02:15:57 AM »

Because you're a fucking ponce, too stupid to travel through time and not get stuck and you spend all your time on this website. You're not from our time but you're using up our resources and fucking up history as you go.

I spend very little of my time here on this website. For now, I am just using it as a break.
My time machine will hopefully be repaired too. I made many trips safely, it was just damaged in some bad weather before my last journey.

Do tell what theories are accepted in the future you are allegedly from.

The string theory that exists in this time is highly incomplete, I suspect. From what I have heard, it also has not been unified or reconciled with other areas of science. Twenty six dimensions are required in order to fully describe behavior. Honestly, I can't give the full justification for that: I knew it at one time, but it is far too complex to recount completely by memory.
The basic idea is that it is impossible to move in just one dimension. Everything exists in all twenty six dimensions, and if it exists in a dimension, then it has mass. (Clearly we exist in the time dimension: we may not control our movement there, but if we did not exist in it, we could not move along through it). We move in all the dimensions we exist in: there is no way to be perfectly still. If you examine something closely, however, very closely, then its movement will be like a fractal: constant, tiny adjustments. However, on an arbitrarily small scale, especially in time, you may be able to find a straight line of movement.
That is where quantum behavior comes in. Light has what is called a quantum mass: it exists, but it exists in the smallest possible amount in each dimension. That makes it appear to have 'lost' a dimension: whatever fraction of it exists is negligible. Waves bear a great many similarities to lower-dimensional objects, as entities that only exist with a medium to disperse them in higher dimensions: light takes on a property similar to this when examined, though it is only close to being a wave. Similarly, such small objects act the same.
That's complex, but that's a very very simple explanation of how the theories were unified.

I'm not sure what relevance brains are: to my knowledge they are simply the organs where we think. You may mean brane, as in membrane, that was an archaic term used in this topic.
The idea of the higher dimensions being curled up aids imagining the theory, but does not fully work in practise. They would appear curled up from our perspective because we do not understand motion in those dimensions. They are simply other possible directions of movement. In a singularity, space and time are warped: that's four of the twenty six dimensions. As gravity affects all twenty six, the other twenty two are warped within the singularity as well: that which radiates from a black hole does so in every dimension. It's referred to as the Clarke Effect (or occasionally the Technical Error, I think that term's a relic).

We are primarily concerned with the '3-brane', as you call it, as those are the dimensions where we primarily exist.

On a side note, a hypothesis in my time states that there are in fact two time dimensions. This is pure speculation at this stage, it has been neither proven nor disproven, but it is interesting nonetheless. A corollary to the worldline model would allow for there to be 'hypertime', the time dimension along which time itself progresses. What this would give is, rather than a timeline, a time-square.
You have multiple horizontal lines, each one a simple timeline. The horizontal direction is classical time, the vertical is hypertime. We then get a diagonal line as we move forward in both dimensions.
This model of time is partly based on a pre-worldline model, which explained how time could change. It is impossible to cross the diagonal line, the 'moving present', but you may travel to it. This would mean I came from some point horizontally past the moving present, and I am now continuing diagonally on, with the hope the horizontal line I end with, will be different to the one I started on.
Some horizontal lines are different worldlines, but not all.
It's an archaic theory, but it had a brief resurgence in popularity before I left.

63

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: How time proves quantom mechnics

« on: August 26, 2015, 01:51:11 AM »

Look up the second law of thermodynamics.  It is a law, and that title is not just given to anything. 

I am not aware of how to look things up in this time, I apologize.
However, in my time the Second Law of Thermodynamics refers to the fact that, in a closed system, everything will tend towards equilibrium, rather than randomness or disorder. If, in your time, it says everything will move towards disorder, I hope you are referring to some archaic and unintuitive (to say the least) definition. Otherwise your science truly is mistaken.
Perhaps you could do some 'looking up'?

everything started out highly ordered in the big band

The big bang was, in a simplified sense, an explosion. Everything accelerated, heated up, melded: that kind of chaos (in the layperson's sense) seems very far from any definition of order. Certainly, it was far from equilibrium.

The universe started in equilibrium and now we are in a dense planet surrounded by empty space, that doesn't sound like equilibrium to me.

What is equilibrium to you? For me it is the absence of change: no acceleration, for example: stillness or a constant speed. How could the big bang be referred to as an equilibrium? I am hoping we are working from incomplete definitions.
Unless you are talking about the pre-big-bang state, but we don't know nearly enough to determine whether or not that is equilibrium.

Information is disorder, and if information can be created and not destroyed then it follows that disorder always has to increase or stay the same in a closed system.

For the coarseness to exist, energy must be exerted on it from an external source in order to make those marks: and each transfer of energy gives off some excess. A CD (though I do not know what they are) is not a closed system. You need to acknowledge whatever it is that makes these grooves in it.

64

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Ask a Time Traveller Anything

« on: August 26, 2015, 01:34:04 AM »

Your shtick is getting a little old. You should add in aliens or something and freshen it up a little.

I am concerned with saving the future, not providing entertainment.

65

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: What were Adolf Hitler's beliefs?

« on: August 26, 2015, 01:32:39 AM »

@JohnTitor - Banking and currency rule this era. In order to make a lot of small changes, you need it as a medium to direct the change you want.  If you have a lot of it, you can influence many people and thus outcomes. So, why not ask help of others who can initiate these changes with you? If you can find a way to get lottery winning numbers, and email them to persons you choose, you can put a plan in motion. So, private message me with winning numbers to the Mega Millions or Powerball lottery and if they are correct, I would 100% buy into your story. The probability of you giving me the winning numbers of an exact date are so small, you have to be from the future. I would reject all other sources of that ability unless you are the anti-Christ. I am not joking or being sarcastic... I am very serious about what I have stated.  I have no way to prove or disprove your claims, but if real, I would want to help.

I did consider this, but you would be amazed how little change this would make. In addition, lottery winners have their identities made public, which would not aid subtlety. For now, however, my time machine is broken, otherwise I would be back in the future.

66

Flat Earth Debate / Re: How buildings sinking below the horizon are impossible on a flat Earth

« on: August 26, 2015, 01:28:04 AM »

Two 2D views does not make a 3D image.  It makes two 2D images.  For being someone who claims to know a lot of stuff from the future, you are really dumb about geometry. 

On topic: this question has been asked before. If you are not satisfied with the answers, I don't know why you're expecting anything new by repeating it.

Onto the 'off-topic' discussion, are you familiar with graphs? A 2-D plane is described with the aid of two lines, an x and y axis: that's two 1-D images. A 3-D plane is described by three lines, or three 1-D images (x y and z). So a certain amount of lower dimensional images does indeed give a 3-D image: while it is just a representation on paper, it is a representation because what the 3-D graphs represent is only clear if it is extended out of the page to give a third dimension.
A pair of 2-D views by necessity gives at least three lines. In the cube example, the top vertex, when the edge faces you, forms the origin of a 3-D graph, this time in three dimensions.
I do not claim we see in perfect three dimensions: I have never claimed that. I say only that we do not see in two.

I would ask, how can a sight that cannot exist in two dimensions be a two-dimensional sight, as you claim?

67

Flat Earth Debate / Re: How buildings sinking below the horizon are impossible on a flat Earth

« on: August 25, 2015, 03:54:19 PM »

If you are looking at a cube, you are seeing two 2D images, your brain speculates on a depth.  That is not the same thing as seeing 3D.  A 3D object has 3 dimensions, dummies.  You can not see all of the cube at one time, you can only see 2 dimensions at a time.  Please try not to be so stupid when you are posting on a serious science forum.

If you can see two 2-D images, you are not seeing in 2-D. If you were seeing in 2-D, you would only be able to see one set of two dimensions.
I have a great deal of respect for serious science. Dimensional knowledge was very important for the design of my time machine, I am aware of what I am talking about.

68

Flat Earth Debate / Re: How buildings sinking below the horizon are impossible on a flat Earth

« on: August 25, 2015, 03:29:22 PM »

yes, we can sense depth.

Sensing or interpreting depth is not the same as seeing 3D.  You do realize that you would have to see an object from every side at the same time in order to actually see 3D, right?  We see two 2D images, and our brains are hardwired to put them together to makes us think we are seeing depth.  What are you people having trouble understanding this time?  I feel like I am talking to a class room full of first graders. 

It would appear more like you're working from different definitions. Seeing depth means seeing something that does not exist in two dimensions: however we do not see all of the third dimension as you say. Both of you are correct, in a way, but it would be better to formally define what seeing in three dimensions is, first. If there are alternative definitions, debate is impossible.

Let us take a cube as a thought experiment. If you just look straight at a face, you are seeing a 2-D surface. You see it at a distance away, however, giving a third dimension: but all you observe is in two dimensions. If the cube is glass we see all three dimensions of it, but that complicates matters.
Instead, turn the cube pi over two radians. You look straight on at an edge: however, you also see two faces which cannot exist in the same plane, as they are at an angle, and they intersect only once. Observing two separate 2-D planes means we do not observe strictly in two dimensions: a third is necessary. Only four dimensional creatures could see all of the third dimension, however: just like how we as 3-D creatures may draw a 2-D box on a piece of paper and see inside and outside it at the same time.

69

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: What were Adolf Hitler's beliefs?

« on: August 25, 2015, 02:11:09 PM »

Are you attempting to fix it yourself?  You could bury a note for future time travelers to come and pick you up.  Or perhaps they can time-mail you some fixed parts?

Time mail is not easy. Physical travel through time requires a machine, and I don't believe the resistance has any others. There is D-mail, for electronic communication to the past. I haven't received any of those recently, which is part of why I suspect that I succeeded. Unfortunately it is hard to verify: they may have no more updates, they may not know to message this time, or there is the worst case scenario.
I can get most of the parts I need in this time, I just need to be able to find the problem, then I can fix it.

This forum is my note. It was the obvious choice (a fair amount of popularity, and open to positions that could be seen as absurd). Another worldline's Titor would come here, and find my records. Any other time travellers from my worldline, if I failed, know what I sought to do, so they can check.
I can't send a message to the future, but that is of little consequence. They can do little to help unless they can reach back into this time: that is, unless they have a time machine. in that case, they can meet me directly, or see what I've done.

70

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: What were Adolf Hitler's beliefs?

« on: August 25, 2015, 01:36:45 PM »

Are you at all concerned that the 1% divergence will simply lead to a new overlord or perhaps resource-driven wars that will result in a future similar to the one you are preventing?

It is a worry, but I should have moved onto another attractor field.
The hotspot model seems to be at least partially accurate: there are certain points where the attractor field 'thins': where it is far easier to perform an action to take us past 1% divergence. I believe I've located them, though I cannot be certain until I reach the future again.

71

The Lounge / Re: A way for our time traveler to prove himself

« on: August 25, 2015, 01:12:42 PM »

John, I recently realized a hole a mile wide in your story.  If a person is sucked up by a black hole then the energy of the hawking radiation released in the form of light will have the equivilent amount of energy as the mass of the person sucked in.  This is an incredible amount of energy, amounting to more then the energy released by atomic bombs by a huge margin.  CERN would not be just likking a person, they would be leveling everything within 100 miles of them.

That is only true under the assumption that all the radiation is released in the three dimensions we exist in: which is not so. There are twenty three others into which it is emitted.

72

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: What were Adolf Hitler's beliefs?

« on: August 25, 2015, 01:09:50 PM »

John, how is your quest against CERN going?  It's hard for me to tell being a part of the time-line as it changes. 

Well, I believe. I have caused ripples and achieved many of my major objectives. I cannot be sure until I reach my time again, but my time machine is currently damaged.

It occurs to me that if you are successful, no one will know of your hard work or sacrifices in the future; indeed, many in this time will think you a troll at best, a lunatic at worst.  I for one salute your valiant and unrequited efforts to make the world a better place.

Thank you for your compliments. I hope that you never have to have proof that I'm genuine.

73

The Lounge / Re: A way for our time traveler to prove himself

« on: August 25, 2015, 03:28:57 AM »

Fuck off, John Titor!

I am sorry my presence angers you so. Is there any reason why?

74

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: How time proves quantom mechnics

« on: August 25, 2015, 03:27:24 AM »

Entropy is in fact information, information in it's purest form looks like randomness and disorder and that's what entropy is.

I very much hope the science of your time does not state that everything is heading towards randomness and disorder. That does not make sense even conceptually. Randomness requires energy changing form in order to be maintained: energy cannot be created or destroyed, but without perfectly efficient transfers, much will become unusable. Further, the universe is expanding.

Everything does not go towards equilibrium, if that were true then the universe would be in equilibrium and not in the form of galaxies, stars, and planets and the universe as we know it would not exist

Why would that be true? Eventually there will be no galaxies or stars or planets, I would hope that is common knowledge. Simply put, we have not reached that stage yet. In a closed system, everything heads for equilibrium (which seems an absurd definition of 'disorder' as you put it, which I hope is why the term is not used in my time), but that doesn't mean it is impossible for things to move away from equilibrium within a certain part of the closed system, so long as in another part of the system, things move further towards equilibrium. For example, from the Big Bang, stars formed (with some wasted energy), and they are constantly releasing heat and light and all kinds of energy: getting closer to the time when they have burnt out. The energy they provide is what allows moves away from equilibrium on the planets that orbit them.
In time, however, there will be equilibrium.
A star wouldn't need to burn out, but it would need to take in as much energy as it gives out, clearly. That's equilibrium.

this would also make it possible to destroy information from the universe.  You are denying many well established laws of physics.

I honestly don't understand where your claims are coming from. Perpetual change is impossible. This does not really relate to destroying information, it's just as I said. You can't constantly be using energy to, for example, accelerate or de-accelerate matter. The energy must come from somewhere, and when the stars collapse and matter begins to fail, where would that energy come from?
Equilibrium is not perfect stillness, it is just balance.

Your talk of destroying information, while relevant, is however an interesting topic. There's a lot of discussion on it even in my time, once black holes and time travel were proven to exist. To go back in time, functionally whatever's sent is 'destroyed': the energy and information within a body would vanish from that time. However, it clearly wouldn't be destroyed: it would end up being 'created' in the past.
Further, when matter is consumed by a black hole, energy radiates from the hole; but as was seen in my time, the amount of energy that radiates before the hole collapses is the merest fraction of whatever amount of energy it takes in.
The point is simple. Information cannot be destroyed: but it can be moved. You need to view the system as a whole: all dimensions (in the black hole case) and all times. It isn't as simple as you say it is: then again, I suspect your understanding is incomplete. Disorder is an incoherent final state: you may be using out of date terminology (at best).

75

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: What were Adolf Hitler's beliefs?

« on: August 25, 2015, 03:04:55 AM »

What energy source does your time machine utilise?

A crystallized xenon-difluoride battery.

Xenon is a noble gas that is inert and never reacts with anything or forms molecules.  Nothing short of magic could put xenon in a molecule.

The idea that noble gases cannot react is completely wrong. It is very hard for them to react, but the heavier gases certainly can, and so can form compounds.
Radon, xenon, krypton, argon and (in very limited conditions) helium all have known compounds by my time. I would be very surprised if no such molecules existed even in this time. It was an old field of study.

76

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: How time proves quantom mechnics

« on: August 24, 2015, 05:08:43 PM »

I may be able to help you understand time, if you're interested. By necessity I know quite a bit about it.

One thing I will add though is to critique your mention of entropy. Entropy bears no relevance to information. Entropy increasing refers to one thing and one thing alone, and that is the transfer of energy: everything moves to equilibrium.
Is it called disorder in this time? That seems a very misleading term. Everything is moving towards complete equilibrium.

Quantum uncertainty simply results from what I believe is called the observer effect. To deduce the velocity or the position of a quantum particle, it must be struck with a photon: without that, observation is impossible. Normally the impact of a photon is negligible, but with another quantum particle, the effect is substantial, so the act of observing alters that which is being observed.
The future is set. Just because something cannot be predicted does not mean it is not set: the future is not a quantum event. Unobserved by anyone in the present, it still exists. (The present is a subjective concept).

77

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Free Will

« on: August 24, 2015, 05:02:57 PM »

Free will is not a dichotomy. We have the freedom to make choice: our actions are not set in stone. They may alter and shift the worldline: we do have the power to change events, and there is a degree of randomness in the world, otherwise divergence and altered worldlines should not be possible.
However, consciousness is not responsible for this freedom. You can ascertain that simply by asking: where do your thoughts come from? Consciousness is not eternal, so it cannot cause itself. Our thoughts are not in our control: the control we feel is an illusion.
Free will, however, is not. We have freedom, if 'we' are said to be our bodies, and everything contained within.

78

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: What were Adolf Hitler's beliefs?

« on: August 24, 2015, 05:00:20 PM »

What do you hope to gain from engaging in this forum?

Entertainment, and ripples. Small changes may, if made in a hotspot, add up enough to shift the worldline.

Can you not tell the people on here are humouring you?

Maybe. Only one needs to believe me, but even disbelief may alter behavior.

What energy source does your time machine utilise?

A crystallized xenon-difluoride battery.

Can you post a picture of your time machine?

I have posted a photo of some of the interior before. A full photo would show some background, which would give away my position, and I don't want that.

What year are you from?

I was born in 2036, as I've said before. I come from several decades after that. I don't want to give my precise age.

What did/will CERN do?

They learn (or have learned, I'm not sure) to weaponize black holes, with which they swiftly take the world over. No one would dare go against them, so every state is ruled directly, or by proxy, by CERN. Their intentions may have once been good, but the removal of freedom and globalization have done a lot of harm.

Can you divulge an event that will occur in the near future, other than CERN?

Not in detail. The internet as you're used to it doesn't exist: research is very hard to do. I know that there will be a President Sanders in 2029, but little of what I researched would be a major event for you. Jeb Bush wins the 2016 election, but I have done my best to alter that outcome in an effort to increase ripples. The fact is, the only knowledge I possess of events, is of events I will try to alter. I hope you never have reason to believe me.

If you do want further evidence, I have made a post entitled 'How to build a time machine', where (with sufficient trial and error) you should be able to build a primitive, admittedly crude way to send messages to the past.

How was enough Ununoctium synthesized to even be visible, much less power a machine able to travel through time?

The unoctonium (as I call it) was produced by one of CERN's colliders. We stole it.

79

The Lounge / Re: A way for our time traveler to prove himself

« on: August 24, 2015, 04:51:17 PM »

If you redo a day you only have to do the work you need to do that day once.  There is no point in doing work if you will redo the day anyway.  You could basically have a day off and convince me that you are a time traveler at the same time.

By the way, I did say in the original post that I am willing to tell a few people what the number is so long as they have been in debates with you before I made this thread.  If anyone wants to know the number then just ask and I will tall you what it is if you meet the requirement.

I have answered each of those problems in turn. It would take quite some planning and luck for us to coordinate on the same day, and a day off is not a good thing to take in the middle of some intensive research. Secondly, if you tell anyone else what the number is, and I give the correct answer, you would only conclude that you told an alternate account of mine, if I remember your disbelief.
I have lived with time travel for much longer than you. I don't know if you've heard the phrase, but in my time it's often said "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." It's typically used to assess intel, but it applies here to. For you, time travel is an extraordinary claim: guessing a number would not be extraordinary enough to be convincing evidence. '

However, I'm sorry to say the time leap machine is no longer accessible to me. When I attempted to return to my time, and my time machine failed, I followed the object I was attached to, to a different part of the world. It will take me some time before I can afford to fly back.

80

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Ask a Time Traveller Anything

« on: August 24, 2015, 04:45:00 PM »

Hello again.

From your perspective, it must seem like I've been gone a while. I completed my mission, and I had intended to head home, but my time machine was caught in a storm while I was here. I thought I'd repaired the damage, but evidently not: there wasn't enough power to make it back to my time, where I hoped to see changes.
I may be here a while. It's a matter of finding and fixing the problem, which could take some time.

I'm happy to see that discussion has continued in my absence. People disbelieved me, as I expected, but I'm glad my discussions were enjoyed.
I am not aware of what an anime is, I'm afraid. The term Steinsgate interests me, however. There was a Professor Stein who worked with HK, and she was one of the leading time travel scientists (one sadly not yet born). She first theorized the existence of the Gate Worldline, so I suppose it could be called Stein's Gate. Where was it you heard that term?

It may be coincidence, I am aware of the human tendency to see patterns when there is none, but I would like to hear if this 'anime' bears any more similarity to what I have said. So far, it may only be coincidence (I would recognize many names) and something inspired by the other Titor.

81

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Ask a Time Traveller Anything

« on: July 23, 2015, 02:36:18 AM »

Well, destroying the tool would make CERN never get it back. Destroying the wielder.

That's far from certain, and destroying the LHC is not so easy, as I have pointed out. Do you know how many campaigns were attempted before we got our hands on a working time machine?

82

The Lounge / Re: A way for our time traveler to prove himself

« on: July 21, 2015, 10:29:05 AM »

Why is it only for emergencies?  Why can't you redo a day just for this experiment?

I have explained this already. It is a great deal of work to relive a day, especially ones with as much happening as mine. I am not going to put myself through that for an irrelevancy. I very much doubt this would convince you truly, and even if it did that would have no beneficial effect. You are asking for a lot of work, for little gain.
Imagine time travel as a real thing, rather than a fantasy. Consider what you are actually asking me to do, rather than the idealized, fictional notion that seems to be popular in this time. Reliving a day, much less an important day, is no simple or small feat.

Any day you don't happen to need to do anything that could fail if done again, try to do this.

The only time such a day could come would be if my work is done here.

Again, if we are proven that time travel exists, that's really major. Lots of changes will come from that.

This is too simple to convince anyone, and it won't matter. If this Mikeman tells no one the number, the popular conclusion is that he was in on it, or lied about what I said. If he messaged one user in private, the conclusion will be that they're an 'alt', that I asked my hacker friend to check their inbox, or that they were in on it too and messaged me. This experiment is not going to convince anyone on this forum, let alone enough people to make any kind of difference.

There's a mantra in my time, it's good for seeing through propaganda. "Extraordinary claims require an extraordinary basis." I don't know if it's known in this time. The more unbelievable a statement, the more evidence you must supply. I am aware that claiming to be a time traveller is an extraordinary claim, and the experiment offered does not come close to being the kind of basis needed. Before time travel, you could believe that I was a rich, bored person who PMed whoever you told with a request for their bank details, and the number.

Your experiment is after a disproof, not a proof. You want me to fail the experiment, so you can conclude that I am not who I say I am. Your experiment is styled towards disproving. That's fine, it's a useful technique, but it's also meaningless for the sake of proving anything, and so far too much work for no benefit.

83

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Ask a Time Traveller Anything

« on: July 21, 2015, 10:17:25 AM »

Possibly sabotaging the LHC? It only takes 1 or 2 holes punched in the side. If the LHC was destroyed, and unnoticed, (perhaps if they were knocked unconscious and blinded from a sudden vacuum in the control center), who would fund it?

It wouldn't be quite so easy to get in there, but I can think of a handful of ways of managing it. However, it would also take perfect timing, and a lot of work to ensure no sabotage was noticed. I doubt that would happen: I can't bring a v-pulse or any volatile substance through time, and I don't have the technology to replicate it here, even if the 'control room' (which I doubt is just one place) was as easy to access.
Even if that were possible, CERN has its sources. It could be repaired, or another could be built somewhere in the future. I need to take care of the wielder, not the tool.

84

The Lounge / Re: A way for our time traveler to prove himself

« on: July 19, 2015, 02:30:28 AM »

JohnTitor you should seriously consider writing a fiction book. If you ever have any time during that one day you keep repeating, you should start writing.

I am not currently repeating a day.

Why the whole day?  A day is just the time it takes for Earth to rotate and there is nothing universally significant about it.

True, a day was just an example. However, the time leap machine is very primitive: it only works in sizeable stretches of time (with a maximum range of two days: anything more could be unsafe). I can't redo only a small stretch of time.

At the moment there is no definitive proof that time travelers are real.  Many physicists suspect that if time travel is real then we should see time travelers from the future all over the place, but there are no confirmed instances of this. 

That's just practicality. Time travel is not commercially available. Those that mainly use it, CERN, do not want to go to a time before it was invented, because then they'd be stranded. Time travellers first officially went to the past in the early 20s, after suspended animation began to work properly. They could go back, do what they want, and take a shortcut on the long road to the future

If you are redoing the day anyway then

I'm only redoing the day in an emergency. I have no way to predict when they could occur. The last emergency involved a half-mad time leaper from the future killing my entire lab. There was no way to predict an event like that, and no way to waste time. Another example would be if the Rounders found this lab (as my associate tells me happened: he time-leapt that time). There's no time to check the forum, only to flee. The world isn't so ideal.

85

Flat Earth General / Re: Theory: First time here to share my knowledge

« on: July 19, 2015, 02:23:18 AM »

Tell me, If I would be located on Earth but in Time dimension(direction) of Jupiter, what would happen?

Would I experience Jupiter or Earth or Both?

You have not defined time dimension in any way other than your semantic, subjective and meaningless description of how the two have difefrent 'days' (that is: take different amounts of time to rotate: what we expect due to their size). Your question is meaningless.

86

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: How To Build a Time Machine

« on: July 19, 2015, 02:22:05 AM »

Well, a voice is easy to identify, no?

Yes, but I was in a resistance, I am aware of ways to conceal my voice, and I was not asked for anything that required speech.

87

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Ask a Time Traveller Anything

« on: July 19, 2015, 02:21:33 AM »

If you destroy the LHC and cause them to lose all funding, will that do it?

Perhaps, it's hard to say for certain. It certainly wouldn't do away with those that motivated the power-grab, but may make it impossible for them.
I can see no easy way to achieve that. Assassination won't do it.

88

The Lounge / Re: A way for our time traveler to prove himself

« on: July 18, 2015, 12:38:09 PM »

What does it cost you to redo a day?  Why can't you do it today for this experiment?

I'm working a great deal every day, on temporal theory, and working on how to change the future, and bypass 1% divergence. In addition, if possible, I am working on how to create a consistent future, and timeline, and possibly reach the Gate worldline.

The problem with redoing a day is that you need to redo the whole day, not just the few events you'd like to see change. It's not so simple as you suppose.

89

Flat Earth General / Re: Theory: First time here to share my knowledge

« on: July 18, 2015, 12:33:05 PM »

For example, 1 Jupiter day is 24 - 30 days on Earth, but passage of 1 day on Jupiter is equal to the day of Earth.

Why do you believe that? If you are on Jupiter, it will feel like 24-30 Earth days pass. Day just refers to how it moved around the Sun.
Time does vary with location, due to gravity: however, altitude also varies with location. You can move up, and down, and the ground you walk on is rarely even. You can still alter direction, and dig, and jump.

Time is a direction.

90

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: How To Build a Time Machine

« on: July 18, 2015, 12:28:21 PM »

It's not me denying it. I'd like to buy your story, honestly. Also, don't worry about your voice. There are free to use programs that can change your voice to the point that nobody would recognize you.

I'm not sure when I ever brought up my voice.