Jump to content
Curious Cosmos
Sign in to follow this  
TheCigSmokinMan3

Titor Predictions - Track Record To Date

Recommended Posts

 

ok.. now my questions:

 

What about all those billions of Johns in multiverses slightly different from the "original" Johns Universe trying to do the same?

In more or less the same moment.

 

Wouldn't they try to get to the very same universe as "our" John?

 

Ok, at least several hundreds would match the criterias i guess.

At least those realities created femtoseconds and closer before the jump would be very similar to his own reality.

 

Didnt Zeno tell that there is no limit in dividing time to the next fracture?

Wouldn't that mean that "about-to-jump-Johns" are still created and should show up continuesly?

 

Where are they?

Does anybody understand what i am trying to say?

 

 

 

 

Nice questions. These are the questions put forward by almost everyone who read his posts.

 

I understood almost all of his concepts so I'll try to answer them.

 

One John from 2036 travels back to 1975. To return, he jumps back to the point in time before he arrived in 1975 and without turning off his machine, sets it to travel to 2036. Now everything progresses as it did in his original timeline, where a John would have went back to 1975. Now he returns to a Worldline where there is no John in 2036. From the Observer's perspective in 2036, it would be the John that left, but a bit aged due to the period of stay during his travel.

 

Still haven't got the idea of TT according to Titor?

 

I personally suggest that this could be a correct method of time traveling without any paradoxes. If not this method, I cannot think of any other better way of Time Traveling. Even if Titor is not real, his science could be correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally suggest that this could be a correct method of time traveling without any paradoxes.

 

 

Nice answer.

I understand the logic behind what you are saying and it really seems to make sense to avoid paradoxes that way.

 

But still, it doesnt give me an answer about the billions or at least some additional Johns thrown into our universe just because their machine too selected our worldline to be the closest.

 

I remember him saying that our worldline already differs 2% from his. That means he knew the state of every f+#%*ing quant in the universe at any given time? How can anybody measure that? Heisenberg says u cant! Right?

 

Maybe its just my limited horizon....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But still, it doesnt give me an answer about the billions or at least some additional Johns thrown into our universe just because their machine too selected our worldline to be the closest.

 

I remember him saying that our worldline already differs 2% from his. That means he knew the state of every f+#%*ing quant in the universe at any given time? How can anybody measure that? Heisenberg says u cant! Right?

 

 

 

2% divergent. Whenever he turns off his Time machine in the past, he is altering that worldline, i.e. he is diverting the events from the way they are supposed to progress( may be someone seeing him can cause a major divergence which is not possible to meassue. That 2% could be an approximate divergence factor from his Worldline.). He did say he sets a new worldline when he turns off his Machine. That doesent mean he is creating Billions of Worldlines at that instant.

 

Every John will have a Target Worldline. For every set of Original Worldlines, there are a set of Alternate Worldlines where John lands in. When every Time Machine works fine to reach a 1975 why would an error occur? May be you are Saying about the mirror example he wrote. The farther you go from the mirror, the more the risk of divergence confidence.

 

This is confusing. But I can't explain that part. Cuz read this:

 

A few people have asked me about this statement so I will try to clarify it.

 

On my worldline (A) in 2036, I was given a mission in 1975.

 

I turn my machine on and jump to another worldline (B) in 1975 with about a 2% divergence from (A).

 

From the very point I turn my machine off on (B), I create a new worldline just because I'm there. This line can be described as © and started when I got to (B).

 

I am now doing my mission on line © in 1975 when I discover a very a good reason to go forward on © and see what happened. I turn my machine on and go forward on © to the year 2000.

 

When I turn it off, I start another line called (D). So from my perspective, here we are on line (D) in the year 2000. In order to go home to line (A) I must turn my machine on and go back on (D) until I reach © which in turn would take me back to (B) which in turn takes me to a point before I arrived on (B) then I go forward from the point I arrived on (B) back to (A).

 

If all this isn't enough to get your head spinning…here are some issues we're dealing with in 2036.

 

1. Did your worldline (D) exist at all before I got here from ©? (personally I don't see how it couldn't)

 

2. What happens at the end of a worldine at the edge of the superuniverse?

 

3. If there are infinite worldlines and infinite possibilities and an edge to the superuniverse, doesn't that mean occurring events on worldliness are staggered as they reach the edge? (time could end at any moment without warning).

 

 

 

Even in 2036, they couldn't understand a few things about the Superverse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2% divergent. Whenever he turns off his Time machine in the past, he is altering that worldline, i.e. he is diverting the events from the way they are supposed to progress( may be someone seeing him can cause a major divergence which is not possible to meassue. That 2% could be an approximate divergence factor from his Worldline.).

 

Look. This is yet another perfect example of Titor's nebulous attitude. Stop trying to explain it as if you know what he meant, because even HE did not articulate what he meant.

 

For anyone that understands percentage, it represents a relative measure with respect to some quantifiable metric. IOW, you must immediately ask "2% of what????" You simply CAN NOT leave something hanging as a percentage measure without definining what it is relative to. If you do, you are purposefully trying to pull the wool over someone's eyes.

 

sceptic_one has appropriately tried to ask the question of what this 2% is relative to, and the only one that makes sense is 2% of all quantized measurements within any single reference universe. That is simply not possible, as it would mean total knowledge of all universal states.

 

This 2% number is the absolute biggest hole in Titor's story, for he never defined its reference standard. And I don't know if I have ever seen any posts where anyone demanded he define that reference standard.

 

RMT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This 2% number is the absolute biggest hole in Titor's story, for he never defined its reference standard. And I don't know if I have ever seen any posts where anyone demanded he define that reference standard.

 

 

 

I agree.

Thanks for making that clear.

 

Besides that,

2% of all events (quantum states) happening in the whole universe would be quite a lot!

 

But this is just what my logic is telling me...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every John will have a Target Worldline. For every set of Original Worldlines, there are a set of Alternate Worldlines where John lands in.

 

 

Thanks for trying to help me on that. And it sounds nice, but is that what he told?

Or is that just an explanation to make it more believable?

 

I remember from his posts telling that the machine selects the most likely to his own worldline. So its a matter of chances. Thats why he is talking about percentage, right?

 

If its a matter of chances and the machines of all worldlines are selecting the one closest the origin one, then there would be a bound set of worldlines and their most likely alternative ones in EVERY worldline, right?

 

Again, if we agree on multible universes needed to avoid the grandfathers paradoxon and the like, we also have to agree on multible Johns created every slitsecond and travelling to the most likely counterpart. And since the chances should be the same in every worldline, wouldn' t they all or almost all show up in the same worldline, means here in ours like the first John?

 

Sorry for repeating myself on this, but i think i didnt make this point clear, maybe its my lack of english words.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right now, you have to understand what physics thinks about parallel universes. That is that they think that each one would be different. As the Navy Scientist said in a review after a talk radio show about Titor:

http://www.coasttocoastam.com/shows/2004/08/10.html#t

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I am a Navy scientist, and thus relatively objective about things. But the John Titor story disturbed me. I downloaded it on Saturday and listened to it Saturday night. Even though I was extremely tired, I could not stop until I'd heard the entire show.

 

My sleep was disturbed all that night - I was totally hooked on the story. On many levels, the story seems plausible; and therefore it's worrisome. I'll be watching world events even more carefully than normal now, for any sign that John's predictions (or rather his memories) will come true. And, just for chuckles, I'll read more of his writings. At the very least, it's pretty decent fiction.

 

I still remain skeptical, however. An initially plausible story is not necessarily a true story, no matter how compelling. And an initially plausible story may not remain that way upon deeper inspection. As an example, the multiple universe concept Titor espouses remains an interesting, untestable theory. If true, there may be a universe, and an Earth, where Napoleon established a long lasting empire. We might be speaking French in some Universe. In another, we might be speaking German. Or WW III may have actually occurred during the Cuban Missile Crisis, in which case we might not be speaking at all!

 

Imagine a universe, a non-Hollywood universe, where a meteor missed the Earth and giant dinosaurs still reign supreme. (I wonder if dinosaurs would have eventually gotten around to building radios and computers?) The point is, if time travel takes us to another universe, isolated from our own, then "our" planet might be wholly unrecognizable. Going back in time doesn't have much meaning if the course of events in that universe differ considerably from ours. The traveler might as well be visiting a different planet.

 

And that is the primary reason that I think a time traveler, bouncing in and out of various multiverses, would be exceedingly lucky to find a particular computer built during our past, since his past, and ours, are presumably not identical. Unless of course we have managed to build in the next 30 years a multiverse scanner, so we can tune in on all possible (like infinite?) universes, and zip through each universe's time history till we find a particular planet, and a particular time, with a particular gadget we need. I'm sorry, but that's not bloody likely.

 

And this little thing about a civil war: if we as a society are so lazy and sheep-like, as Titor proclaims, is it realistic to believe we will suddenly develop enough of a social consciousness to lay down our life battling our government? Our lifestyle is pretty cozy, so I'm doubtful that lazy, sheeplike people would give it all up over an election result gone astray. Besides, our government has really big guns.

 

No, in the America that Titor describes, Americans, on average, might be willing to fight, but only during the commercial breaks. Which means they won't be getting very far from their recliner and their beer cooler.

 

As for carrying tiny black holes around in a suitcase -- the concept of creating tiny black holes is only viable because the things are so tiny, and evaporate so quickly, that they have no time to eat anything of real worth (like people, cities, worlds). In spite of CERN's efforts, it will still take a little while for humans to create these blackholes, and only then with a stupendous amount of power. So are we to believe that in only 30 years or so we'll be able to confine two of those star-eating beasts inside a suitcase? Won't the power cord be a bit cumbersome?

 

And are we to believe that this awesome technological feat will be accomplished in a world recovering from WWIII; in a world so devoid of technology that it needs an archaic computer? The phrase "non sequitor" comes to mind. In spite of my initial visceral reaction, I think the story has way too many holes (of whatever color) to be believeable. The technical and sociological complications to Titor's story mount up quickly, essentially sabotaging it. Maybe a good science fiction writer can fix the technical flaws, in which case it might make a good read. To be fair, the C2C program entertained me for a few hours, which is not bad for the price, and made me think. And I guess that's really the point.

J.C.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

 

Now, the only thing Titor is saying is that the thinking is not broad enough, and that there are groups of worldlines that are similiar. Therefore, all the differences of each worldline of the same group of worldlines makes it impossible to say exactly how many Titors time traveled due to the inherent chaos of the computer system, that can not get pass exact uncertainty in physics, thus the inherent chaos of exactly determining how many worlds that is. Each Titor acts similiar but some may act different and do. So, upon using the way the distortion unit is made, he still will arrive in a similiar universe like the one he left. The other worldlines of traveling Titors when reaching 2036, you will never see, because each of them are seeking out worldlines from their perspective then, with the same type of equipment. Therefore they thought in 2036 according to him that there is not an infinite number of worldlines, but a finite number with some a day ahead and some a day behind. It is like saying that the Big Bang did not go on forever, but had a finite time when Creation started. Therefore a finite number of universes do exist, but according to the technology they currently have in 2036, they still can not determine to what extent the real number of worldlines would be.

That is exact uncertainty and never really be answered leading to it being like a religious experience, and although even quantum physics is weird and strange, we never can fully grasp those other worldlines because even though thinking that those worldlines may exist, it still can not actually be determined. This is done by quantum computers that only pick up worldlines that are going through the same phase of existence while the others are still unreachable. So, the thinking currently is that there are no group of similiar universes, each one would have to be different as the Navy Scientist quoted up above, but still that is current thinking, and again future thinking may be different. So although you may think that about worldlines, one has to come up with experiments that prove it or mathematices prove it, but since experiments may never be able to prove it, then it still is just a thought that does not reach our real reality, but exists only in the imagination.

 

So to answer your question, it still is in the realm of science-fiction, where it will remain until a method of proof exists to actually be able to prove it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow! What a reply! Thanks for putting this together :)

 

And that is the primary reason that I think a time traveler, bouncing in and out of various multiverses, would be exceedingly lucky to find a particular computer built during our past, since his past, and ours, are presumably not identical. Unless of course we have managed to build in the next 30 years a multiverse scanner, so we can tune in on all possible (like infinite?) universes, and zip through each universe's time history till we find a particular planet, and a particular time, with a particular gadget we need. I'm sorry, but that's not bloody likely.

 

 

 

Agree, would need to store all states of universes for later compare. Maybe there's some dramatic increase in information storage (e.g. harddisc space) within the next 30 years but it cannot be practicly infinite. And not even talking about a computer needed to calculate all those numbers.

 

No, in the America that Titor describes, Americans, on average, might be willing to fight, but only during the commercial breaks. Which means they won't be getting very far from their recliner and their beer cooler.

 

 

lol

 

Won't the power cord be a bit cumbersome?

 

 

hmh.. if you are able to create singularities and calculate numbers from infinite discspace, why not being able to have infinite energy?

 

To be fair, the C2C program entertained me for a few hours, which is not bad for the price, and made me think. And I guess that's really the point.

 

 

 

Yes it entertained me a lot and still does. Too bad it came across just a few days ago and not at the time John was availlable. I would've loved to ask him some questions.

 

So to answer your question, it still is in the realm of science-fiction, where it will remain until a method of proof exists to actually be able to prove it!

 

 

 

Thats of course not satisfying! lol

 

But thank you a lot trying hard to make me understand something what seems to be a paradoxon itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In reply to:

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

2% divergent. Whenever he turns off his Time machine in the past, he is altering that worldline, i.e. he is diverting the events from the way they are supposed to progress( may be someone seeing him can cause a major divergence which is not possible to meassue. That 2% could be an approximate divergence factor from his Worldline.).

 

Cree replies> Yes a two percent divergence will do it, change a timeline.

 

However what may ust be realized, is that when you change one timeline, you could end up changing them all.

 

There is a physical equation problem here.

 

This mass to with the mass of the rocks and objects within that world.

 

That worldline might diverge two percent, but the overall structure of that timeline, will not have changed that much.

 

What might change, is the mechanics of that timeline, not necessarily its overall mass.

 

Some objects might change, such as restaurant signs out of the blue.This is where there had not been the night before and nobody knows how this sign got there, however the time-fild, that this worldline exist on, is not so much changed.

 

This has to be a feature of the two percent timeline divergence, by a time travel felon, into that timeline.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'Look. This is yet another perfect example of Titor's nebulous attitude. Stop trying to explain it as if you know what he meant, because even HE did not articulate what he meant.

 

For anyone that understands percentage, it represents a relative measure with respect to some quantifiable metric. IOW, you must immediately ask "2% of what????" You simply CAN NOT leave something hanging as a percentage measure without definining what it is relative to. If you do, you are purposefully trying to pull the wool over someone's eyes.'

 

 

 

 

I sure KNEW what he meant. What problem do YOU have with that? Whenever anyone talks about Titor, you seem to rise up to the occasion with anger. During his initial posts Titor wrote:

 

'Also, I realize there is no way for anyone to believe me with absolute certainty so I hope I'm at least entertaining. You may be interested to know that even in 2036, there are a large number of people who don't believe in time travel. Are you sure the world is round?'

 

 

He openly admitted he was entertaining if you don't believe him. I don't think he is a BIG criminal if he was entertaining people for FREE with science concepts. IF you DON'T understand it or it does NOT match your logic you cannot expect anyone to tell a story which satisfies YOUR thoughts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That worldline might diverge two percent, but the overall structure of that timeline, will not have changed that much.

 

What might change, is the mechanics of that timeline, not necessarily its overall mass.

 

Some objects might change, such as restaurant signs out of the blue.This is where there had not been the night before and nobody knows how this sign got there, however the time-fild, that this worldline exist on, is not so much changed.

 

 

 

Interesting thought, but how do these 2% quants "know" how to form those complex objects?

 

No, really! 2% of a "Worldline" can only mean 2% of a given state of ALL quants in a Universe, that can result in anything!

 

Or let me put it this way: if i change only 2% of the quants in your computer you weren't even able to read this! 2% of the universe is a whole bunch o quants! Look around on your table.

 

Wouldn't all the things surrounding us change completely if we were able to change even only 0.2% of their quantum state?

 

oh maybe i am talking already nonsense. ;)

 

Seriously, 2% of what? "Certain historic events and the position of certain pysical objects" or "All possible quantum states"? I think John trapped himself with this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'Seriously, 2% of what? "Certain historic events and the position of certain pysical objects" or "All possible quantum states"? I think John trapped himself with this.'

 

 

You seem to take that 2% very seriously in his story but I don't see it as a big flaw in the story. Of course he wasn't specific, but that doesn't mean it is a flaw because even the experts in 2036 aren't fully clear with the Superverse concept. Titor knows only what he was 'taught' by 'them'. They use TT to fix problems and that's what it is used for. They wouldn't worry much abut 'how' it is done, if it 'can' be done with the use of singularities.

 

The farther away from the center of the cone, the more differences you will see in the world line. The C204 begins to "break away" at about 60 years. This means the level of confidence drops rapidly after 60 years of travel and the world line divergence increases. In other words, if I wanted to go back 2000 years and meet Christ, there is a better than average chance I would end up on a world line where he was never born. The computer units and gravity sensors "record" your trip and you are quite easily able to return to your point of origin. I am aware that research is being done on faster units with more accurate clocks. I imagine that they will be able to go back farther with a higher degree of divergence confidence.

 

 

 

As far as I know, the 2% divergence is a constant for 60 years of travel. For 100 years it could be 10% or so and it increases depending upon the Time Machine and the period of travel. Its just a concept of measurement, as far as I know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, your worldline is already 2% different from mine, and there's no way to give you absolute facts about future events.

 

 

This sounds like a perfect excuse!

Yes i am sorry, these 2% and some other "facts" really bother me.

 

Its important to me how he could tell the difference between worldlines, because its a cruical point when it comes to getting back home. Nobody would jump blind into worldlines if he/she would not know EXACTLY how and why being able to get back. At least i would not!

 

Ok, he also said the machine *records* the travel. WHAT is recorded? quatum states? stored where? holographic? i can only guess how many numbers that will be to calculate on.

 

And dont tell me *they* didnt know what to record but somehow did it!

 

Right now i see holes in this story that a black hole of the size of Andromeda would fit in.

But thats just my point of view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I sure KNEW what he meant. What problem do YOU have with that?

 

The problem I have is that you cannot explain it (the 2%) in any scientific, quantifiable manner. Neither could Titor. Ergo, since you cannot explain it in a manner that can be verified, I'd have to say you DO NOT know what he meant.

 

Whenever anyone talks about Titor, you seem to rise up to the occasion with anger.

 

Only when people talk about Titor in a specific way: In a manner that tries to pretend as if his story is scientifically viable, and in a manner that attempts to validate his story in these ways. This is how urban legends continue to snowball. And this unban legend, because of the gloom and doom he predicts for not only America but the world, can be dangerous for people who cannot discriminate entertainment from reality. It's the kind of urban legend that can lead to things like Heaven's Gate suicides. KnowhatImean Verne? ;)

 

I don't think he is a BIG criminal if he was entertaining people for FREE with science concepts.

 

That all depends on how people try to distort, extend, or interpret his words and his story. You could make the same argument that it is "entertaining" to yell "fire" in a crowded theater because you could get a kick out of everyone scrambling and trampling all over each other. But at the end of the day, if people are injured or lose their life because of that kind of "entertainment" then it most certainly is a crime. There ARE people who take Titor very seriously, and not as entertainment. Some of these people may honestly be terrified of the things he has predicted...which contrary to the "list" the CigMan keeps, his predictions are VERY weak.

 

If someone takes someone else's life in the name of Titor, that is all the evidence I would ever need to be angry about how people distort this "entertainment".

 

RMT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You seem to take that 2% very seriously in his story but I don't see it as a big flaw in the story. Of course he wasn't specific, but that doesn't mean it is a flaw because even the experts in 2036 aren't fully clear with the Superverse concept. Titor knows only what he was 'taught' by 'them'.

 

Sorry dude, it's a flaw, and a big one. Since you seem to position yourself as knowing something of science, I am amazed that you cannot see and understand the flaw behind not being able to specify the reference measurement upon which the 2% is based. Any "expert" in 2036 who was able to come up with a number like 2% would, by the very nature of percentage measures, HAVE to understand the measurement that the 2% is based upon. Furthermore, it is absolutely useless to tell/teach someone about a percentage measurement unless you can tell them what reference measurement it is based upon.

 

Let me give you an example. A lot of people do NOT know what the "2%" means with respect to 2% milk. Do you? And even if you do know it is 2% milkfat with respect to the milkfat content in whole milk, would you EVER know what that 2% was unless someone had defined it as being 2% of the milkfat of whole milk (i.e. the milk as it comes out of a cow)?

 

In fact, now that I use this example, I am more convinced than ever that the person behind The John Titor Experiment was looking at a milk carton when they answered the question with this 2% nonsense! :)

 

As far as I know, the 2% divergence is a constant for 60 years of travel. For 100 years it could be 10% or so and it increases depending upon the Time Machine and the period of travel. Its just a concept of measurement, as far as I know.

 

And I will continue to hound you on this "concept of measurement" until you explain what its reference measurement is. Hello! McFly! Anyone home? :) If you are as interested in science as you seem to project in your posts, then this flaw in his story should bother you. If it doesn't bother you, then you are not being scientific at all in your analysis of Titor's story.

 

RMT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

S.O. says my concept is interesting.This is good.

 

If I were to attach a large fast food restaurant sign, to the top of S.O.s auto, wonder what he would say.

 

Hi Ray! )Smile) how are you?

 

need a happy pill. Creedo shoots one into his mouth and now, miraculously Ray is a very happy guy.

 

He sure as Hell doesn't know why, but he's very happy.

 

Next step, the wardrobe.

 

Yes tucks, top hat, cane, tie.

 

Ray cant wait to get on stage, "he does", is singing and dancing.

 

Creedo is really getting into this, as Ray is singing, {Puttin on my top hat, shining up my shoes.

 

Creeds looks at where Ray should have a set of trousers on AND they goofed up the script, by giving him ladie's nylon stockings.

 

He doesn't even know he's up there in ladie's dark pantyhose. Oh me-Gud!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dan,

 

You are, once again, breaking your own rules. Need I remind you which ones?

 

I am not interested in making fun of you Dan, because I think you have some issues, and that is not funny. But your constant jabs and insults aimed at me are really getting tiring. Could yok please either stay on topic, or stay silent?

 

RMT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'Sorry dude, it's a flaw, and a big one. Since you seem to position yourself as knowing something of science, I am amazed that you cannot see and understand the flaw behind not being able to specify the reference measurement upon which the 2% is based.'

 

 

Position myself as knowing something of science? Where did I make that remark? I said I knew of Titor's science of TT. Another thing is I know NOTHING about YOUR science (there's a difference):

 

TPM of MST = (Triplex Physical Matrix) of (Massive SpaceTime)

 

 

Titor wrote:

I have been communicating online with others who are interested in time travel.

 

 

 

I am a guy interested in TT so I read his posts and got the concepts. I am NOT saying it is REAL. I never knew there would be a lot of dangerous 'side-effects' of Titor.

 

Oh that 2% divergent! Yes if I imagine myself as a TT appointed for a mission. I am given training on that science. I am not the one who invented it. Someone who invented it used Singularities to travel through time and uses gravity locks, does the research and finds out what happens and says the farther you travel, above 60 years, the less accurate the travel and so and so…. I listen to it and talk with people what I am taught.

 

I feel a little worried that you take the Titor stuff SO seriously. May be the government should impose a BAN on the Titor's postings.

 

If you are as interested in science as you seem to project in your posts, then this flaw in his story should bother you. If it doesn't bother you, then you are not being scientific at all in your analysis of Titor's story.

 

 

Again, MISTAKE! Not SCIENCE! SCIENCE OF TIME TRAVELLING USING SINGULARITIES! There is another SCIENCE dealing with 'faster than light' method of Time Travel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Position myself as knowing something of science? Where did I make that remark?

 

Fair enough, my bad. However, you do seem to take a tone of attempting to validate much of Titor's words as scientifically plausible.

 

Another thing is I know NOTHING about YOUR science (there's a difference):

 

TPM of MST = (Triplex Physical Matrix) of (Massive SpaceTime)

 

There's plenty of explanation in this forum that I have provided if you are truly interested. Contrary to Titor's "science" mine is an extension of existing science and tensor mathematics. Extensions of previous (limited) theories are in the best tradition of historical developments. For a quick-n-dirty explanation of my extensions: Current science describes Space and spatially-derived quantities (i.e. velocity, acceleration) as being vector quantities, but treat Mass and Time as scalar quantities. My theory simply extends vector concepts to both Mass and Time, thereby creating a 3x3 tensor matrix of integrated physical measures.

 

I never knew there would be a lot of dangerous 'side-effects' of Titor.

(snip)

I feel a little worried that you take the Titor stuff SO seriously. May be the government should impose a BAN on the Titor's postings.

 

Let me give you a prime example: Do you know the history of the original radio broadcasts of "War of the Worlds" by Orson Wells? Do you know the kind of panic that resulted? It is NOT about banning free speech. It is about being responsible with "entertainment" such that the line between it and reality are not so blurred as to cause panic (from which bad things can and do happen). People who act as if they are scientifically validating Titor's story are being irresponsible with entertainment. Other people who, through no fault of their own other than being ignorant, can be affected by such irresponsibility. This is why I will challenge such posts as yours... to make sure there is a counter-voice that ensures people who are more gullible that The John Titor Experiment is not based in fact. I am not attacking you personally, I am simply tempering your posts with reality, sanity, and SCIENCE. ;)

 

Again, MISTAKE! Not SCIENCE! SCIENCE OF TIME TRAVELLING USING SINGULARITIES! There is another SCIENCE dealing with 'faster than light' method of Time Travel.

 

And yet you still ignore, and cannot scientifically explain the 2% BS. The more you ignore it, and the more I point it out as a major flaw, the more people can see that there is scant scientific validity in much of what the Titor story claims as truth.

 

RMT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And a PS is in order:

 

SCIENCE OF TIME TRAVELLING USING SINGULARITIES!

 

It is inappropriate to label this as "science" for it has not been scientifically validated that it is even possible. There are THEORIES of how one MIGHT time travel using singularities, but it has not been proven nor falsified. Just like my Massive SpaceTime: It is a THEORY which is based on existing science, but it is not yet science in and of itself.

 

Just a clarification there,

RMT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I were to attach a large fast food restaurant sign, to the top of S.O.s auto, wonder what he would say.

 

 

It depends on the picture but most likely i would say

 

thank god its not my car.

 

2 mistakes here

 

1. Asuming that i have a car, which is not true.

2. Asuming it would be my car you are talking about, which is impossible, see 1.

 

Further questions:

How large is that fast food restaurant sign?

What tools you used to attach it?

Was somebody else involved?

In wich condition is the sign?

Whats the color of the sign?

Whats the shape of the sign?

Whats the name of the restaurant?

Is the sign emitting light?

Wheres the power coming from?

Whats the type of car?

Whats the color of the car?

In wich condition is the car?

Can you send me a picture of the event taken place?

Do you have the manual of the car?

Any other evidence that this really happend?

 

 

You maybe see that your post created more questions than it answered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry Ray, you need to laugh at yourself as well as let others laugh at you, as in a few of the past post, you have been frightening.

 

 

Further questions:

How large is that fast food restaurant sign? Ans,_Thirty foot long, steel and plastic construction with lights.

 

What tools you used to attach it? ans> An overhead crane and nylon straps.

 

Was somebody else involved? ans> I did not do this the nature of time and space did this all by itself.

 

In wich condition is the sign? ans> The sign just appeared there one day.(Is wich like the word which)?

 

Whats the color of the sign? >I don't know?

 

Whats the shape of the sign?>Big and square, up on a metal pedistol

 

Whats the name of the restaurant? >Might have been

 

Is the sign emitting light? ans>On your car, not, it's not plugged in.Where it stood, I guess?

 

Wheres the power coming from? > I think PGE

 

Whats the type of car? ans> A large car for all that weight, a Caddy?

 

Whats the color of the car? >Beige

 

In wich condition is the car?> Spanking brand new, with blonds in there.

 

Can you send me a picture of the event taken place?> Please consult Rainman time and Ray can be reached at LAX and he might be on one of the secret hangars?

 

Do you have the manual of the car?> No not on me, right now.

 

Any other evidence that this really happend?>How do we know that in the Wizard Of Ozz, Dorhty was not really suffering from the after.effects, of a date with a guy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What tools you used to attach it? ans> An overhead crane and nylon straps.

 

Was somebody else involved? ans> I did not do this the nature of time and space did this all by itself.

 

In wich condition is the sign? ans> The sign just appeared there one day.(Is wich like the word which)?

 

 

 

Hah! Got you on that! In one worldline you used a crane and straps to attach it and in the other worldline you "did not do this the nature of time and space did this all by itself."????

 

I think YOU are John! That would explain lots of your deep thinking philosophical posts here.

 

"Is wich like the word which" yes, i apologize for my bad english.

if you find any further mispellings, you can keep them. They will love your company!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Creeds,

 

I'm sorry Ray, you need to laugh at yourself as well as let others laugh at you, as in a few of the past post, you have been frightening.

 

"Serious" might be the more appropriate word. And you only seem to focus on those posts where I am serious. I assure you that you can find plenty of posts where I am lighthearted, even poking fun at myself, and allowing others to laugh at me. In fact, you laugh at me quite a bit and usually I don't have a problem with it. But it does get old when you do it as I am trying to be serious about something.

 

Now let's put the shoe on the other foot: How often do you take it too seriously when I am poking fun at you, Creeds? Look in the mirror and I think you might see yourself in a new light. ;)

 

RMT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK I dont want to contradict you anymore. You are very much Patriotic and I dont want to argue with you about Time Travel.

 

There's plenty of explanation in this forum that I have provided if you are truly interested.

 

 

No. I am interested in Travelling through Time, not knowing about Time.

 

It is inappropriate to label this as "science" for it has not been scientifically validated that it is even possible. There are THEORIES of how one MIGHT time travel using singularities, but it has not been proven nor falsified.

 

 

 

Thats what which makes me interested in it. That is a possible way of travelling into the PAST in a multiverse. While travelling "faster than light" or any other method only takes you to the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...