Jump to content

Do you still believe John Titor? Was he a genuis?


Recommended Posts

Mark,

 

Well, I think that you know what my opinion is.

 

Was it true? No, of course not.

 

Was Titor a genius? Actually, Titor wasn't an "a" anything. It was a group effort. Group genius - maybe.

 

You're a "junior", aren't you? You did your PhD at Cal and your father (senior) did his PhD at Stanford, dissertation - "Denumerable Markovian Decision Models", Annals of Mathematical Statistics, Vol. 39, No. 2 (Apr., 1968) , pp. 412-423? He's a mathematician and your a philosopher?

 

Maybe you or your dad knew one or more members of group Titor. Do you know Dr. Carl Haber at LBL in Berkeley?

 

As you probably know, back in 2001 I said that I believed there to be a Cal/Stanford/UC Davis connection in this story. Maybe you recall people on campus talking about the Titor Saga back then.

 

Thanks for considering my inquiry. :)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

sorry, no connexions?

 

You're a "junior", aren't you? You did your PhD at Cal and your father (senior) did his PhD at Stanford . . . He's a mathematician and your a philosopher?

Sorry. This is bound to happen I suppose. The Dr Sheldon M Ross is a well known statistician whose book Introduction to Probability is frequently used in undergrad courses and who is, as last I knew of him, is Dean of IEOR at the College of Engineering at UC Berkeley.

 

Although we share the very same names, there is no genetic relaion between each other. As yet, I have never met him even though I onced dropped him a note in his pigeon hole when I discovered that some one shared my name at the very same school I had attended.

 

I, on the other hand, am less famous and less reknown than he. Although I majored in maths (and philosophy and "Western Literature" via ISF), I never took a Stats or Probability class in my life. I am not a numbers guy -- I am a Logician, more pure than the pure theory Formalist mathematicians. :-)

 

I am a mere graduate student at UCLA attempting to survive the PhD programme and earn my degree before I flunk out or lose my sanity.

 

Maybe you or your dad knew one or more members of group Titor. Do you know Dr. Carl Haber at LBL in Berkeley?

Again, there is no blood relation between the two of us.

 

I cannot assume to know who Dr. Sheldon Ross knows or knew. You can very well ask him yourself. He does response to polite emails.

 

As you probably know, back in 2001 I said that I believed there to be a Cal/Stanford/UC Davis connection in this story. Maybe you recall people on campus talking about the Titor Saga back then.

Sorry to disappoint you but no one ever heard of Titor and still no one cares or knows.

 

When I was at Cal of late (1997-2001), never once was there any hint or note about some John Titor.

 

In fact, the only places where one reads about Titor are the "time travel" message boards and Art Bell. Heck, the first time I read about Titor was back in late 2002 when I searched and registered membership onto a couple of time travel message boards.

 

Not that any one was smart enough to avoid the hoax but truth be told, no one outside of "time travel" message boards ever chat about time travel in a non-serious forum.

 

Any serious discourse about the subject of time travel and about time machines is confined to Astrophysics 101, advanced physics course on General Relativity, and special seminars that may include a week on causality violation.

 

Perhaps, there are a few Philosophy departments which may include a class or two that may cover the speculative paradoxes inherit in time travelling.

 

That is to say, when wanting to talk about time travel in an academic setting such as at a university especially a major research institution as UC Berkeley, you are apt to discuss more about differential forms of solutions to Einsteins equation e.g. Kerr's Solution or bored at the tensor [P.S. edit: index] gymnastics involved in doing differential geometry calculations.

 

Only very recent has it been acceptable (tolerated) to talk about "time travel" and "time machines" in mainstream and serious physics circles without appearing as a nutcase. Even then, the discussion is couched in advanced mathematics that not anyone can participate in the discussion.

 

To be honest, understanding Tipler's 1974 paper (http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v9/i8/p2203_1) is a prequisit and a necessary primer for further serious study into time travel.

 

Not to seem off-putting but non-technical discussion of time travel is rather like discussing fan-fiction of "Star Trek: Voyager" while being ignorant of anything Star Trek prior to "Voyager" and never having seen an episode of "Voyager". You can do it, but any serious substantive discussion requires a thorough background and understanding of the mathematics and physics involved on the topic which sad to say, many at every message board on time travel lack. I am not being mean but truthful. I have never encountered anyone on any message board who has demonstrated at least some understanding of tensor calculus. At best, a few people acknowledge that there is mathematics beyond single-variable calculus.

 

To be taken seriously, you must know what the heck you are talking about and understand it as well. chat

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: sorry, no connexions?

 

I have never encountered anyone on any message board who has demonstrated at least some understanding of tensor calculus.

You're talking my language, Faustus! ;)I have a tensor theory of Information that I am working on that seeks to explain the "problems" in Relativity that prevent it from being unified with QM. It stems from treating both mass and time as scalars...but that's another thread. :)

 

RMT

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...