Jump to content

WORDS FOR THE FUTURE, by John Titor


jmpet
 Share

Recommended Posts

The bell rings again!

 

spacer.png

 

'Oh thank god!' Says Creedo, 'this sport is far too tense for me. Let's go to the track! I like to see them skinny dogs run!'

 

'Aw C'mon Creedster!' States Nitescott. 'I want to see this! … Look! … there is Rainman posing to sports illustrated photographers!'

 

spacer.png

 

 

"Captain's log, stardate 41358.2. I am nailed to the hull." J.L.Picard

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 122
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

jmpet,

 

Would you or anyone else be interested in presenting a John Titor acid test? The point being once we are past that we can move into truly new terriroty- time travelling without it being told to us by Ralph Nader. One thought is making up a "fact sheet" for time travellers to fill out as step one of their wacko "I am a time traveller!" theory. For example:

 

1. What time did you come from?

 

2. Why are you here?

 

3. Why did you pick this website?

 

4. How did you get here? How does the machine work?

 

5. Can you offer immediate proof that you're a time traveller? Lottery numbers, Super Bowls, etc.

That's an excellent idea - if we could only get the would-be time traveler to cooperate. It's been our experience that to get those questions answered they have to be posed as both leading questions and within some sort of "hidden agenda".

 

Asking them directly is always (read literally - I don't know of an exception) answered as follows:

 

1. Predictions: I can't answer that because it would (destroy, alter or disrupt) this "timeline" (the last term given without definition).

 

2. How does your gadget work: I'm not a physicist, and/or;

 

3. It's a secret and my life would be in danger from your government MIB's

 

4. Why are you here: To warn you about the End of the World, Death, Destruction and Civil War (and more recently), to tell you that John Titor was my friend, pal, partner or trainer.

 

Basically you get no direct answers to direct questions.

 

This doesn't mean that the situation is hopeless. Every time travel story, including Titor's, includes at least some basic "physics". And that's your acid test - the physics.

 

If the TT talks about ZPE's, magnetic monopoles, free energy or says that Einstein predicted time travel we know right off the bat that it's a hoax. If nonsense physics "techno-babble" is tossed out (like "Top-spin, dual-positive singularities that produce a standard, off-set Tipler sinusoid") you know that you're being had.

 

Beyond that you can look closely at the physics. It has to make some sense and it has to be based on what is already known about physics. If it isn't then its a hoax. Physics doesn't monitor opinion polls and alter itself based on what the alt.sci.physics community demands of it. ;)

 

As I said in the previous post, when people like Dave Trott start asking questions that aren't so basic and the answers can't be found with a quick & dirty Google then the TT has to either put up or move on.

 

Titor never did directly answer Trott's question about proving: "If a spacetime contains a causality-violating time machine, but does not contain a chronology-violating time machine, then the only closed causal curves in the spacetime are closed null geodesics".

 

The implication (and solution) are really simple and, as I referenced above, it contains a "hidden agenda".

 

Titor brought up the subject of Tipler, CTC's and timelike vectors. Trott was spoon feeding him information to test his actual knowledge. If Titor had any physics knowledge he should have been able to easily handle the scenario. Trott was parroting Titor but he was using real physics language rather than Titor's Internet techno-babble. Titor didn't recognize his own story in Trott's posed scenario.

 

And, in addition to that, when Trott posed his question Titor didn't recognize that he was being given the opportunity to refer to Li-Xin Li's paper (Phys. Rev. D 50, R6037–R6040 (1994) "New light on time machines: Against the chronology protection".

 

A time machine tech should be able to handle that simple scenario. It's a really simple solution. I think that anyone here, if they stopped, looked at the scenario and thought it through could figure it out.

 

Rather than show that he could handle a simple physics situation where the solution couldn't be found on Google Titor chose to return to "tomorrow".

 

That's your acid test...physics.

 

 

Just another damned cowboy with a college education.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>Obviously your own material is not good enough to bolster your own ideas.<

 

Why use my own words when I can use the logic of your own words against you? Howso?

 

*I wrote: "I latch on to those fragments that further refine, or frame, my own thoughts. I leave the 'other stuff' that doesn't ring true to me."

 

*To which you replied "Then this would define your opinion, which could be (and likely is) indefensible as scientifically verifiable fact. What you describe is a call to anarchy, not science."

 

But as it turns out, "I latch on to those fragments that further refine, or frame, my own thoughts. I leave the 'other stuff' that doesn't ring true to me." was your quote and it referred to your own theories, so therefore:

 

"TPM of MST = (Triplex Physical Matrix) of (Massive SpaceTime) would define an opinion, which could be (and likely is) indefensible as scientifically verifiable fact. That description is a call to anarchy, not science." must be a logical statement.

 

Don't think you can jump the shark like that and just get away with it.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>Tensors are higher dimensional concepts which are not amenable to simple language as you like to use. Yes, that's right, you the guy who complains that I am not objective about higher dimensionality. Your ideas of higher dimensionality cannot be described accurately without tensors. But I'd love to see you try.<

 

Tensors are nothing more than forces upon objects independant of their own force i.e. the Milky Way is under the tensor of the expanding galaxy. Tensors are not overly complicated concepts. Tensors tensors tensors. There- I said it. This does nothing towards showing how to control all these vector variables, in fact it goes a long way towards supporting John Titor's time travelling story- his time machine had three tensors- the VGL system which works like Ginger (IT) does. This is old news.

 

What's even older news is the Riemann curvature tensor theory which was written thirty-three years ago which is a four tensor index (Riemann? Rainman?? Hmmm...).

 

"Tensors" is a contemporized version of Newton's three laws all rolled into one" tensors. But now we're going back a good 350 years, this is very very old news.

 

So basically in a nutshell, "TPM of MST = (Triplex Physical Matrix) of (Massive SpaceTime)" means, in layman terms, "Our reality is based on our physical body, plus the tensor forces of the universe that act upon our body" and in even simpler terms "We are the product of the forces of the universe". Or as Hawking put it many years ago, "The quantum state of the universe is defined by a Euclidean path integral over compact metrics. In other words, the boundary condition of the universe is that it has no boundary."

 

This is it? This is the magic theory that was gonna "set us all straight?" Yeah, I know- I got it all wrong, right?

 

But why should I make my head hurt thinking when I can just plop in more of your own words here?

 

"Proof has been overtaken by falsifiability. IOW, one falsification is worth more than a million 'proofs'. I assume you do know that the concept of 'proof' has an underlying problem called the initial bootstrap assumption. This is why falsification has become more important than proof. I am more interested in ensuring that what I propose/develop is formally falsifiable than I am in dedicating time to 'proof'. Reason being that there are plenty of people out there who may be able to falsify my work, and that is a more efficient use of external resources than dedicating my own resources to come up with a single form of proof (which could ultimately be overturned by one good, formal falsification)."

 

And as far as "loving to see me try" I will use John Titor's words:

 

"The reason I cannot debunk your calculations is because they are true. They are not false, based on speculative facts or exaggerated. They are just incomplete. What you really want me to do is finish your explanation" -John Titor

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't think you can jump the shark like that and just get away with it.

And don't think you can deny the revisionary interpretation you are pushing, for that is exactly what you have done...and it shows in this very post:

 

But as it turns out, "I latch on to those fragments that further refine, or frame, my own thoughts. I leave the 'other stuff' that doesn't ring true to me." was your quote and it referred to your own theories

And right here is where you admit to context-switching, but perhaps you don't even know you did it. If you read the context carefully, the reference to "those fragments" was relative to the thoughts and opinions given by the OP (thetazone). You can even see that context when you include the prior sentence:

Some of the 'truths' discussed in the writings that thetazone has shared are aligned with the same sorts of things I am discussing in Massive SpaceTime.

The "truths" presented by thetazone had nothing at all to do with the mathematics associated with Massive SpaceTime, and nowhere did I claim they did. Therefore, your wish to try and trip me up has done nothing more than show how you like to revise the past to make it fit your personal agenda... same thing you do with Titor's words and your "paraphrasing" and footnoting thereof.

So you can see when I said the words above, I was not dismissing any form of established mathematics. Yet when you used my own words, that was the context you were using them in... You were trying to slink away from having to back-up your idea that mathematics is not necessary. And I am still waiting for you to defend that statement.

 

"TPM of MST = (Triplex Physical Matrix) of (Massive SpaceTime) would define an opinion, which could be (and likely is) indefensible as scientifically verifiable fact. That description is a call to anarchy, not science." must be a logical statement.

Once again, the only way you can make that a logical statement is if you switch the context of "those fragments" from what the OP was saying to the maths of my Massive SpaceTime theory.

Now, would you like to possibly detract your statement about math not being necessary? I see you continue to ignore the radio wave example. If you'd like a simpler one to attack, I can provide that as well. But you really should stop ignoring the statement that YOU MADE. Here it is, to remind you:

 

You don't need a PhD to understand graduate-level physics, because anything that makes sense can also be boiled down to simple words

I'm waiting for your simple words to describe the details of RF signal transmission. Heck, it might make a great primer for 3rd graders to start designing radio telescopes!

RMT

 

 

corruptissima re publica plurimae leges

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tensors are nothing more than forces upon objects independant of their own force i.e. the Milky Way is under the tensor of the expanding galaxy.

That would be an incorrect statement, for they are not forces. I'd expect you to have at least done a halfway decent google search to try and bluff this one. Or at least start with the dictionary definition! Beyond that you could have described them with some words from Wolfram. or maybe even rob some words from Wikipedia. But clearly when you read these references, you don't see a whole lot of "simple words" describing tensors.

Tensors are not overly complicated concepts.

Oh really? This coming from the guy who couldn't compute the ideal power of a wind turbine. Perhaps you would like to use some "simple language" to explain the concept that "makes sense" of covariant vs. contravariant tensors?

"Tensors" is a contemporized version of Newton's three laws all rolled into one" tensors. But now we're going back a good 350 years, this is very very old news.

Clearly you are confusing the application of tensors (to explain physical concepts) with the mathematical nature of what tensors describe (multi-dimensional spaces). Moreover, it seems you are implying that because something is "old" that it is no longer useful. If that is your implication, you are getting in deeper than I thought you would. Addition has been around for quite a long time. So are you telling me that because it is "old news" that it is no longer valid?

This is it? This is the magic theory that was gonna "set us all straight?" Yeah, I know- I got it all wrong, right?

To use your hero's words, this is incomplete. You will not be able to understand the mathematics of Massive SpaceTime because you do not understand the dimensional mathematics that describes how vector fields combine to result in tensor fields. I've tried to explain in another thread, but before I could even get to a rank 2 tensor, you claimed it was all rubbish, and now are claiming that it flys in the face of accepted science. You can claim all you want, but if you cannot speak the language then you assertions are baseless.

But why should I make my head hurt thinking

Yes, that would be a burden to you, wouldn't it? I see your style is to avoid deep thinking and just boil things down to "simple words". Yes, you have also shown yourself incapable of thinking when your "solution" to wind energy begins with:

It's very simple:

 

1. Pay someone to figure it out.

jmpet's philawsafy: "Let other people do the hard work. I'll pay them to do it and claim I was the idea man." That about sums up your position, right?And as to your hero's quote, you've been taken again by the master charlatan:

 

"The reason I cannot debunk your calculations is because they are true. They are not false, based on speculative facts or exaggerated. They are just incomplete. What you really want me to do is finish your explanation" -John Titor

The person behind Titor was certainly educated, and educated enough to know that throwing the "incomplete" charge against anything he could not understand (or disprove) is always safe. The reason? Because logician (and mathematician) Kurt Godel proved to us how ANY formal system of closed logic is incomplete. But now: If you think you are so sly that you can just throw the "incompleteness" red herring at my theories, I am left no other assumption other than you do not have the skills to identify precisely where my theory (and maths) for Massive SpaceTime are incomplete. I agree, per Goedel's Incompletness Theorem that they are, indeed, incomplete. But can you either (a) falsify them or (b) exhibit where they are incomplete.

Hell, you don't even have to try to falsify my tensor work. Why not start with the theory I have laid out for "Information Subsumes Physical Energy"? Have a go at that one, if you think you can falsify it. My equation "I = ms^3" is the scalar equation form of a higher dimensional metric above energy. Yes, in its full form it is a rank 3 tensor, but let's see if you can falsify the scalar form first.

 

RMT

 

 

corruptissima re publica plurimae leges

Link to comment
Share on other sites

jmpet,

 

Actually I don't see any particular red herring. Lead on.

 

BTW: Speaking of red herrings...is there any chance that you are involved in any way, directly or indirectly, with the John Titor Foundation's "Titor comic book" project. Are you a friend or associate of Larry Haber?

 

(No offense intended but we have to run down all leads and possible leads. This one may be nothing...probably is nothing. :))

 

 

Just another damned cowboy with a college education.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>I'd expect you to have at least done a halfway decent google search to try and bluff this one. Or at least start with the dictionary definition! Beyond that you could have described them with some words from Wolfram. or maybe even rob some words from Wikipedia. But clearly when you read these references, you don't see a whole lot of "simple words" describing tensors.<

 

Exactly. Any idiot with a computer can come up with a theory based on tensors.

 

>This coming from the guy who couldn't compute the ideal power of a wind turbine. Perhaps you would like to use some "simple language" to explain the concept that "makes sense" of covariant vs. contravariant tensors?<

 

Okay, let's address this wind power.

 

"While Katrina did significant damage to one large part of the US energy processing capability (the oil rigs and refineries in that area of the Gulf), it is interesting to think about the amount of raw power that was inherent in Katrina, and how much Energy she delivered to that area. So many people are hemming and hawing and worrying about how it will devastate the economy, and there are going to be "oil wars". But at the same time there are futurists, scientists, and innovators who are looking at the lesson of Katrina and seeing future opportunities for new sources of energy and how to tap into them. One cannot argue the fact that hurricanes (and tornados for that matter) are actually free sources of kinetic energy. They are natural energy events, packed with Power (just what we need to run our energy consuming devices) and just waiting to be tapped by the innovation of mankind. And I can predict with certainty that such power systems will be created as we seek energy from other sources. Imagine a fleet of large wind turbines mounted to floatable rigs that can be moved in a matter of days to stand in front of a hurricane that is approaching an area of coastline. Not only will these wind turbines generate energy from the hurricane's natural power source, but they could also be designed to dissipate the hurricane's energy before it ever reaches the shoreline, thus saving the city. There is already a patent for such a system. It only takes the innovation and engineering excellence, along with financial backers, to make it happen." -RainmanTime

 

>So are you telling me that because it is "old news" that it is no longer valid?<

 

Yes! Science is provisional, not falsifiable. Science is based on facts, not conjecture.

 

>You will not be able to understand the mathematics of Massive SpaceTime because you do not understand the dimensional mathematics that describes how vector fields combine to result in tensor fields.<

 

I will not be able to understand them because it's needless, over-complicated psychobabble.

 

>The person behind Titor was certainly educated, and educated enough to know that throwing the "incomplete" charge against anything he could not understand (or disprove) is always safe.<

 

Guess that rules you out as a "Titor candidate" then.

 

>Hell, you don't even have to try to falsify my tensor work. Why not start with the theory I have laid out for "Information Subsumes Physical Energy"? Have a go at that one, if you think you can falsify it. My equation "I = ms^3" is the scalar equation form of a higher dimensional metric above energy. Yes, in its full form it is a rank 3 tensor, but let's see if you can falsify the scalar form first.<

 

Okay, lemmie try. TV = msnbc - cbs X abc (-HBO). It can also work if you substitute HBO with Cinemax.

 

"TPM of MST = (Triplex Physical Matrix) of (Massive SpaceTime) would define an opinion, which could be (and likely is) indefensible as scientifically verifiable fact. That description is a call to anarchy, not science." (paraphrasing directly from RainmanTime's own words)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any idiot with a computer can come up with a theory based on tensors.

Now let's contrast our styles. If I were like you, I'd have a personal attack as a comeback like "Gee, seeing as how you are over-qualified, I'm surprised you haven't crafted your own tensor theory." But rather what I would point out to you is that by knowing how tensor mathematics works, this allows one to determine the validity of any cobbled-together tensor theory by being able to work the math out for oneself. If you understood how tensor formulations describe the details of physics (that might not necessarily "make sense" to the uninitiated mind), then you might have a different opinion.

Okay, let's address this wind power.

Wow, I can't wait to hear this explanation from you about how you think this quote from me backs your idea on wind power. No doubt you will try to twist the words and claim that when I am talking about tapping hurricane strength winds that it somehow relates to, or validates, your idea for wind power in nominal winds. Of course, where we differ is that I provided valid engineering calculations to validate the hurricane theory and invalidate your theory. I'm listening.

>So are you telling me that because it is "old news" that it is no longer valid?<

 

Yes! Science is provisional, not falsifiable. Science is based on facts, not conjecture.

Agree with second sentence. Only agree with half of first sentence. Any "appropriate" scientific theory must be formulated in a manner where it can be falsified (usually by experiment). Again, that is why Titor's story has no "theory" in it...there is always something that prevents it from being falsified (his lame "worldline divergence" is a big coverall). But what does this have to do with my question about "old math" not being viable? Has someone (you?) shown that tensor mathematics is incorrect? I'm listening.

I will not be able to understand them because it's needless, over-complicated psychobabble.

You do realize, I hope, that this is the same attitude the Catholic Church took towards Galileo? They did not wish to take the time to understand his scientific models (and the evidence that supported them). Instead, they branded him a heretic (essentially, the same as your branding my maths as "psychobabble"). Once again, I feel sorry for your narrow-minded approach to things you don't comprehend.

Guess that rules you out as a "Titor candidate" then.

Ahhh yes, another "sly" personal attack. I am so deeply hurt by this....maybe I'd better go have an ice cream to cheer me up. :( :P

Okay, lemmie try. TV = msnbc - cbs X abc (-HBO). It can also work if you substitute HBO with Cinemax.

You see, your "formula" goes like this:1) Throw out some Titor stuff and theories with no scientific basis.

 

2) Get vehemently angry when someone challenges your science.

 

3) Ignore valid questions and challenges intended to allow you to exhibit whatever scientific understanding you do have, and finally,

 

4) Make fun of scientific theory that you do not understand, nor wish to even attempt to form an understanding of.

 

So tell me: Is this wonderful equation of yours in any way related to your "fantastic" ruminations about pi? Now THOSE were some really scientific thoughts! I was almost hoping you'd write a book on pi! (See, I can do it too!)

 

Happy Thanksgiving, jmpet. I must say I am thankful for folks like you as you keep life interesting.

 

RMT

 

 

corruptissima re publica plurimae leges

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh yeah, I almost forgot:

 

Exactly. Any idiot with a computer can come up with a theory based on tensors.

Here's a little light reading for you on the importance of tensors in physics.

 

"Tensors are of importance in physics and engineering. In the field of diffusion tensor imaging, for instance, a tensor quantity that expresses the differential permeability of organs to water in varying directions is used to produce scans of the brain. Perhaps the most important engineering examples are the stress tensor and strain tensor, which are both 2nd rank tensors, and are related in a general linear material by a fourth rank elasticity tensor."

 

For "psychobabble" it sure has done wonders for the advancement of our technology! ;)

 

RMT

 

 

corruptissima re publica plurimae leges

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alright, I'll come down off my high horse a little.

 

>My boy has 111 posts and they are all from arguments, I feel bad for you!<

 

Is that good or bad? And for who? I personally like arguments becaue with any argument, ultimately one person is right and the other wrong and there is knowledge to be learned on both sides; debates are one step away from breakthroughs.

 

Re: Tensors. I don't know what they mean, no one knows what they mean. That means it's your job to educate us so we know what you're talking about. It's quite simple- if you're introducing new concepts you need to at least explain them in plain words. I have no compulsion to read up just to grasp the fundamental principles you're referring to. I am willing to learn however if you're willing to teach, but I ain't taking a night class just to participate on a TT board!

 

Re: Wind power. I don't understand why I have to overstate the simple logic that windmills work. They simply work. You put them up, they spin in the wind and make electricity. I also think that considering you wrote about the positive benefits of wind power days before I joined this forum (which I just read recently), you should be at least a little "in my corner" on the issue.

 

I would love nothing more than one of these windmill companies to develop a "windmill in a box" system. Then they'd go town to town like travelling salesmen speaking to small town mayors selling free energy. Here's how it would go-

 

A one million dollar windmill produces enough energy for 500 homes. This is $2,000 per home. If you can sign up 500 homes in your town that want free electricity forever for only $2,000, I will bring this technology to your town. I bet you dollars to doughnuts there's be a lot of windmills everywhere.

 

Then very quickly, small American towns will no longer be part of a supermassive power grid and the next time some intern spills Coke on the control panel, 15 states won't go dark. As it stands now, especially with the Patriot Act, electricity in our homes is contingent upon two things: big business providing energy at whatever price they determine and our willingness as a people to toe that line. What's the first thing the FBI does in a hostage situation?

 

Re: Provisionality vs science. Science is provisional, not falsifiable. Your scientific approach of first developing theories then finding the science behind it is flawed because the first time someone finds fault with one of your basic principles, the whole thing falls apart. And on a personal note, provisionality is just plain annoying- the provisional approach ignores facts and looks for flaws. If I used the falsifiable approach to your theory, it would fall right apart.

 

Re: Philosophy vs science. Science is nothing more than math, period. If Einstein or Galileo or Newton or Hawking or any of them never sat back and wondered and imagined new ideas, they would have never come up with them. This is the provisionality of science: science is good only until a better science comes along. Hawking's approach to science is the same as mine- first you imagine something that's never been imagined and imagine it's real then work backwards and apply the science to make it logical. This is in essence your approach with one difference- first they thought up the end-product, then the invented the science to make it work. If you simplified your theory you'd see how easier it is not only to explain but prove too. And more people would know what the hell you're saying so more people would contribute. As it stands now, all you do is espouse then challenge and that is really my problem with the whole issue.

 

The Law of Eventuality states that sooner or later, someone somewhere is going to invent a time machine. My approach is to assume it already exists then "look at that McGuffin" and think backwards, then I have a discovery.

 

Re: pi. Pi is a wonderful thing!

 

Reading your past posts- you're really on to something, but you're attempting it from different angles instead of the most logical- the simplistic approach. The simpler a theory, the more it applies to everything else; the more people understand it. I can easily write a 100,000 word book on E=MC2 but it would only end up presenting the same information as the formula itself. The only number I think is more interesting than E=MC2 is pi. As far as number information, I'd look closer at the Qur'an. If you really have a valid theory then it's a truth and truths are easily dilutable.

 

Here's another way to put it. You write your theory, it's proven right, it becomes the new norm. At some point, someone has to make it understandable to teach it to nine year olds. I want that information first. Pique my interest then get complicated.

 

You can never force someone to agree with you, it's impossible. The harder you try, the harder it will be. The way to get them to agree with you is to speak on simpler and simpler terms until your idea becomes so simple that anyone can understand it. Then you re-complicate matters.

 

Happy Thanksgiving to all- I think I'm gonna buy me one of those Vegetarian Thanksgiving kits- you guys see this? Tofu turkey, mashed tatoes etc all in a box?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First question is jmpet = MEM ? (some software I have thinks you probably are)

 

"I do not have a secret agenda"

 

- When someone says this, and they are not a career journalist - they are ALWAYS full of crap and it amounts to "nah, cmon, just trust me here". Titor himself said he was here on a SECONDARY MISSION that he never detailed in full. So his very presence was admittedly a secret agenda.

 

Titor was irresponsible. When something is this important, you leave it to a journalist, or you enlist the help of a journalist and you do it the right, honest way.

 

You are right to be mad about what he talks about, but save it for documented, factual reports.

 

Out of Canada today there was a report of Extraordinary Rendition taking place in Newfoundland. That makes me mad, it is titorish, but the only comment I can give you is that I want the people who gave the a-ok for it to take place to be stripped of their power.

 

I'm writing in the Bloc Quebecois on my ballot this february. Not because they are sepratist, but because they offer the best protection from this kind of thing. If they do seperate, and there is a better chance than ever of this happening now than ever before, I'll move to Quebec and raise my kids 100% french. Side note on Quebec, Ducep recently announced Quebec will be getting their own provincial army very soon to provide quick response to flood, snow storm, earthquake victims. I think it's a great idea.

 

 

---
1 + 1 & 1 + 0

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re, RMT chap on tensors saved even saved the link.

 

Saying example."Oh honey please don't object to what Creedo is trying to do for you. With the changes in fashion now-a-days, its probably normal to see a man wear a modified horse halter, while he's driving his car.

 

RMT; I wont have this. This halter is for the face of a horse and Im a person.

 

RMT's girl; How about I pull this lead rope down with a few jabs, on the bridge of your nose, so you get the idea?

 

Creedo, Can we go get another sandwich, Im hungry?

 

 

Creedo 299

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it me or are these threads getting stupid.

 

I have one complaint that echo's some of Jimpet statements.

 

Now I used to enjoy coming here but I get the feeling that it is becoming an exclusive forum for those who have an academic understanding on space time physics. I try to keep up with it but hey, I need the junior high version to really understand it.

 

Don't get me wrong! I greatly value the intellect of those posters like RMT, Darby & MEM etc, etc, etc and I even enjoy Creedo's Red Dwarf meets Starwars on LSD, style of humour. Carl Sagan had a way of getting complex physics across to us interested "plebs" but this forum frequently gets way out of hand to the point of annoyance.

 

Ok … Now you can all get stuck in to me!

 

 

"Captain's log, stardate 41358.2. I am nailed to the hull." J.L.Picard

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>Now I used to enjoy coming here but I get the feeling that it is becoming an exclusive forum for those who have an academic understanding on space time physics. I try to keep up with it but hey, I need the junior high version to really understand it.<

 

I feel exactly the same way. This site is where the wackos go and surfers go to read up on what the other wackos are doing. (Is it me or does this sound like something Creedo would say?)

 

>Carl Sagan had a way of getting complex physics across to us interested "plebs" but this forum frequently gets way out of hand to the point of annoyance.<

 

Carl Sagan was also ostrasized by the scientific community for "telling the secrets of physics". Physics should be fun, physics should be a thing for common people to talk about and this website is where people who have an interest in physics but aren't physicists go, there are more than enough physics websites out there anyway.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>Titor himself said he was here on a SECONDARY MISSION that he never detailed in full. So his very presence was admittedly a secret agenda.<

 

His primary mission was to fix the Y2K glitch. One of his last posts is

 

>03/24/2001 06:19 pm (about the future) 657

 

My parting thought revolves around something J.C. has been harping on since day one. No, I do not have a secret agenda but I have been paying a great deal of attention to your worldline. My interaction with you was not a direct mission parameter but it was a secondary mission protocol based on standing orders given to all temporal drivers. That secondary objective is basically to gather as much information about a worldline based on a set of observable variables when we first arrive. Your worldline met those conditions. What amazes me is why no one here wonders why Y2K didn't hit them at all?<

 

Then there's some info he sent to Art Bell... I remember something about a PM to Bell saying something like "I fixed the Y2K bug for your civilization" which I find hard to believe, that was written in a different style than Titor's. I find it concievable but a lot harder to believe than a time traveller!

 

His secondary objective makes more sense- find out whatever useful info you can about another successful timeline and perhaps plant the seed for the concept of time travelling, that was there will be more time travellers in the multiverse, that way they increase the likliehood of "another John Titor" popping back into his ZD with a 5100.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

His primary mission was to fix the Y2K glitch.

Ah! We have something in common.

 

It was not his primary mission objective, his secondary. That secondary mission objective is to get the 360 emulator in a 'refined' form from the IBM 5100, to be put to use in modern 64-bit computers. That 'accidentally' fixed Y2K in our worldline.

 

I thought of starting a new thread, but I thought it wouldn't be worth anything, so anyway here it is:

 

You should have some understanding of computer h/w and s/w to get this.

 

Read this board. Its real fun!!! :D

 

http://www.tronguy.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=96

 

 

Desires arise because of the delusion that the individual jeeva is independent and powerful; If this delusion did not exist, the jeeva would be in a state of bliss, there would be no hankerings and frustrations
.
-Jyoutisha Siddhanta Sara

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me, the most logical use I can think of for why a guy from the future would want a computer from the past is because of its inherent function: it operates in one-second increments. Modern computers don't do that- they're based on the spin of an atom or something like that... that is their "heartbeat". The 5100's heartbeat is solid seconds. The more accurate it can sub-quantify units of time, the more calculations it can do in a second and the 5100 only understood seconds.

 

This is important because Titor's machine, which looks like a 5100 if the tekkies ripped it apart for key components then hastily re-assembled to look like what Titor provided, also operates in one second increments. Hmmm...

 

Maybe his objective was to get the emulator, secondary objective was to chat with us folks to create more timelines with time travel and the 5100 was his to make his own time machine or sell to the Ruskies!

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Question: Is newbie_0 = jmpet?

 

Not based on software, but based on observation. LoL

 

To me, the most logical use I can think of for why a guy from the future would want a computer from the past is because of its inherent function: it operates in one-second increments.

Well I think any piece of hardware could be recreated, I guess the one second increments you mention could also be done at anytime even without the prototype.. The only thing that you cannot recreate without the source code would be software. That could be the reason for Titor to travel back in Time.(just my opinion)

 

For instance, take Y2K. All the computer experts predicted computers to malfunction. If it was that easy to fix Y2K, then why was it viewed as a major problem (not by the press, but by the programmers themselves).

 

The undocumented part in IBM 5100 was clearly the 360 emulator at the time of its release. This was confirmed by Bob Dubke.

 

Dubke: The 5100's emulator gave programmers access to the functions of the monstrous, and much less portable machines, that IBM had produced during the 1960s.

 

The System/360 was a single series of compatible models for both commercial and scientific use. The System/360 later evolved into the System/370, the System/390, the zSeries, and the System z9. System/360 (suggesting a "360 degree", or "all-around" computer system) incorporated features which had previously been present on only either the commercial line (such as decimal arithmetic and byte addressing) or the technical line (such as floating point arithmetic). The System/360 was also the first computer in wide use to include dedicated hardware provisions for the use of operating systems. Among these were supervisor and application mode programs and instructions, as well as built-in memory protection facilities.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_mainframe

Bowler: As Hercules has proved, it's within the capability of a single individual to write a complete S/360 emulator in around 6 months which runs on modern cheap hardware.

 

 

Desires arise because of the delusion that the individual jeeva is independent and powerful; If this delusion did not exist, the jeeva would be in a state of bliss, there would be no hankerings and frustrations
.
-Jyoutisha Siddhanta Sara

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...