Jump to content

I am from the future and I CAN PROVE IT


GregoryTarasoff
 Share

Recommended Posts

Tarasoff,

 

the author of that program is completely incorrect. his program could never factor numbers that big-- it would take literally forever.

 

consider the document at this internet address: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSA-704

 

this is a 212 digit number. there is a 30,000 dollar prize for anyone who can factor it. so, if there was anyone on earth who could factor it, they would have. we factored a 600 digit number in a matter of hours. this is simply completely impossible using 2006ad technology. it wasn't easy for us to do it-- there is no way anyone in 2006ad could do it.

If this is so, and if you are from the future, why are you debating the subject? Its only subject to debate if the outcome is somehow in doubt, i.e. we're dealing with opinion rather than fact.

 

Why are you concerned that we should believe you? It was you, not the community, who made the matter of proof and belief an issue - "I am from the future and I CAN PROVE IT."

 

You offered a form of proof but immediately entered into debate as to its validity. To make an offer of proof both the offerer and the offeree have to agree on the item offered without reservation. You haven't met that standard.

 

So why don't you try one of the experiments already asked for by the community. Its you who are concerned that you are believed - not the community. So, if you want to be believed, you apparently have to step back and let the community guide you through the process.

 

Just a suggestion - I'm not really all that curious about the validity of your claim.

 

And its OK if you're handlers decide that you have to wait until your mission is finished here for you to go back in time to some date prior to your registering here and make a specific post suggested by Rainman or some other community member...

 

In fact, take all the time that you need...take several years or several decades if that's what's required. It won't matter to the community. You will have to wait the required time but the community won't...

 

From the community's perspective it will have already happened in their past. No matter when you decide to do the deed they should be able to see the post, well...right now, as a matter of fact.

 

BTW can you explain in a bit more detail what you mean by:

 

i appear to be in 2006 because my organization does not have the power requirements to create an ms or even if we could to generate a temp field anywhere on the order of 75kg.

You're using some sort of shorthand notation and we need to agree on the meaning of the shorthand.

 

What is "ms"?

 

What is a "temp field"?

 

What is the significance of "on the order of 75kg"?

 

And again, why are you looking for "John Titor" here? Did Titor post on this board?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 120
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

That is the best proof I have seen. Could you do a 250 digit number, or 300 if you can get 1k. There is no way to have done that unless you knew the number or ? heres a 250 digit number.

 

45698254578326459875212548632156954896532154685269713546216714

 

59863258941253971564987235131258497622459758416422158556933656

 

99874124588963231254698742123654897412564987512361654984121365

 

489712365498751236599954125556498852331155662213225884

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not that anyone believed him anyway, but it's actually obvious how he did the factoring. He had someone ask him to factor a number that he already knew the answer to. This person (possibly himself) registered less than a week before he did. Therefore when he asked for a number, this person stepped up to the plate to give him a seemingly random number. Then, of coarse, he dances around all questions like the other "time travelers".

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"That is the best proof I have seen. Could you do a 250 digit number, or 300 if you can get 1k. There is no way to have done that unless you knew the number or ? heres a 250 digit number.

 

45698254578326459875212548632156954896532154685269713546216714

 

59863258941253971564987235131258497622459758416422158556933656

 

99874124588963231254698742123654897412564987512361654984121365

 

489712365498751236599954125556498852331155662213225884"

 

no, forget these pathetic attempts at factoring, what this guy is really saying is he has access to some kind of super computer. big deal, I know of open source beouwulf projects that for a few thousand bucks could put together one h**l of a super computer. Enough to factor 1 small 600 digit number. you see, factoring just any random 600 digit number is no big deal, anybody who knows ANYTHING AT ALL about cryptography will tell ya this.

 

RSA encryption standards are based on prime numbers. meaning, the ending of the number alone could discount it from behing factorable. The number Erdo whoever posted ends in a 4, therefore its an even number, therefore very easy to factor. I'm no genius but, as the guy right above me said, factor the number ahead of time, register some other account, post the question and the answer. you already had the solution.

 

if you want a true test let me know I'm sure there's something that could provide proof more than factoring a 600 digit number.

 

ps : rules of prime numbers, they can never end in even numbers (even numbers can be divided by 2 until their prime or close to it (within a factoring table) is achieved rather quickly.

 

they can never add up to 3,6,9

 

they exist in pairs, 11 13, 17,19, etc.

 

they can only be factored by other prime numbers

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if u factor this ill believe u.

 

25195908475657893494027183240048398571429282126204

 

03202777713783604366202070759555626401852588078440

 

69182906412495150821892985591491761845028084891200

 

72844992687392807287776735971418347270261896375014

 

97182469116507761337985909570009733045974880842840

 

17974291006424586918171951187461215151726546322822

 

16869987549182422433637259085141865462043576798423

 

38718477444792073993423658482382428119816381501067

 

48104516603773060562016196762561338441436038339044

 

14952634432190114657544454178424020924616515723350

 

77870774981712577246796292638635637328991215483143

 

81678998850404453640235273819513786365643912120103

 

97122822120720357

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"you see, factoring just any random 600 digit number is no big deal, anybody who knows ANYTHING AT ALL about cryptography will tell ya this."

 

Bull. The current record for factoring is 200 decimal digits. No mystery supercomputer exists that could do what he claims to have done.

 

Do you even know anything about cryptography or prime numbers?

 

From your post I'd say very little.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

firstly, let me apologize for the delay gaps in my postings. as you know, this is a low-priority task, but i get to it when i can.

 

one myth I would like to dispel is that i somehow knew ahead of time what 600 digit number was going to be posted and used that foreknowledge to take the time to deduce a "pre-made" solution that was ready to post. with such foreknowledge, i could take however long i wanted to factor the number, and then by posting the solution immediately after the number was posted, i could appear to do in hours what in fact takes considerably longer. this seems on the surface to be a good theory, until you realize just how difficult it is to factor a 600 digit number.

 

i'll try to explain why, but i realize this may be overly technical. in 2006 ad , the "general number field sieve" is the best algorithm publicly known for factoring large numbers (the us intelligence community has a better one, but still only a marginal improvement). in this algorithm, the number of operations increases exponentially as the number of digits in the number increase. this means that a 200 digit number is substantially harder to factor than a 100 digit number. it requires a lot lot lot lot more time, not just twice as long, but much much longer.

 

i conducted a search to try to find estimates on just how long it would take to factor numbers of various sizes. one estimate says "It now takes the best computers several months to find the factors of a 130-digit number, and it would take 10 billion years to factor a 400-digit number" http://pr.caltech.edu/media/Press_Releases/PR12075.html . another says: "we find that it would take roughly 800,000 years to factor a 250 digit number" http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/schmuel/comp/comp.html

 

factoring a 600 digit number is a scientific impossibility in 2006 ad. it was a very big deal that i was allowed access to a computer that could solve this, and i am not privy to the specific details of how they were able to solve it, although i do know that it is a completely different type of computer than the kind you (and i) use-- it is not a turing-style computer, but is instead a computer which exploits the laws of physics to perform the equivalent of many many many computations in a single instant.

 

if you think that a 600 digit number is factorable in a few months or years, then i suppose the theory that i planned ahead of time, spent those months pre-factoring a number that i knew someone would ask for. but, when you realize a 600 digit number would take hundreds of thousands of years to factor with 2006 ad technology, you (i hope) realize something very special is going on.

 

a second line of evidence is this: rsa-2048 is a 617 digit number that has a 200,000 usd prize for whoever can factor it. if it were possible to factor it with 2006 ad technology, why has no one applied that technology to factoring that number and claiming the prize. indeed a 30,000 usd prize for factoring even a 212 digit number is still unclaimed. if i was just a random person from the internet who somehow developed the ability to factor extremely large numbers, why am i posting proof of this on a message board, rather than using this technology to make myself incredibly wealthy, which is of course all anyone every dreamt of pre-war, right?

 

however, you won't be able to rule out that i am in 2006 ad but merely have access to some secret government computer or special superfast factoring algorithm. i anticipated this reaction-- in an era when the united states spends more on its military than the rest of the world combined, who knows what secret technological developments they have hidden. i cannot convincingly refute this possibility, although it was my hope that people would be just as willing to communicate and aid a secret government official as they would communicate from a future universe.

 

>The number Erdo whoever posted ends in a 4,

 

>therefore its an even number, therefore very easy to factor.

 

actually, even numbers aren't really any easier to factor than odd ones. consider, let's say we have an even 600-digit random number. it's last digit is even, so we immediately know that 2 is a factor. so if we divide out the 2, we're still left with a 599-digit number we have to factor. sure, we might get lucky and find a few small factors like 2 or 3, but in the end, we're still going to be left with a 550+ digit number we have to factor. so, i suppose they're a tiny bit easier, but not much.

 

>It was you, not the community, who made the matter of proof and

 

>belief an issue - "I am from the future and I CAN PROVE IT."

 

there is the certain humor of this whole business. most people have not found the proof i offered to be overwhelmingly convincing. at the same time, several people have expressed a complete willingness to help the project out. one person reports they have already finished stocking a cache. but they have done so without finding the mathematical proof particular compelling. instead they have been more convinced either with my general corrrespondence or by some of the details of the future i was able to provide them that corroborate some things that titor said privately which are not publicly known. as i have indicated, the fact that i got permission to have the 600 digit number factored was met with amazement by my contemporary peers-- i was the only one who believed in that approach to the problem. thus far, it appears the others were right and the factoring of that number was a dead end, a wrong turn, or an unnecessary detour. but to a mad dog, seven kilometers is not a long detour at all, and it seemed worth the risk. in the end, however, it seems that the factoring will not play a large part in how my task was ultimately accomplished.

 

as to recent requests that we factor more numbers-- that is highly improbable. it was a minor miracle to get approval to do it once, and we haven't had particularly good results from that initial experiment.

 

>And its OK if you're handlers decide that you have to

 

>wait until your mission is finished here for you to go

 

>back in time to some date prior to your registering here

 

>and make a specific post suggested by Rainman or some

 

>other community member...

 

>In fact, take all the time that you need...

 

>take several years or several decades if that's what's

 

>required. It won't matter to the community. You will have

 

>to wait the required time but the community won't...

 

well, yes and no. keep in mind that the bridge cannot be in the same place at the same instant. for the duration of the project, the bridge is occupied-- the delayed choice proof will occur after our project is over-- both from your point of view and from mine.

 

there also has been a a bit of confusion about what this sort of proof would look like. when people here talk about the delayed choice phenomenon form of proof, they seem to imagine it will occur like this:

 

1. one day they check the forum and there is no message from me prior to 2006 ad.

 

2. the next day, they check the forum and suddenly there is a message from me, dated in 2005 ad.

 

this is impossible. what you are asking is that i somehow sponaneously teleport every reader of this forum from the universe they currently reside in (in which i have not posted prior to 2006) to a different universe in which i did post prior to that date. this is impossible. we already know that no one under my name posted prior to 2006 in your universe. what has been observed, _is_. if we moved the bridge back to 2005 ad and posted, we would find ourselves communicating with a different universe in which my first post was in 2005 ad. the residents of this universe would not find anything unusual either, because they would simply observe my first ever post occurring in 2005 ad.

 

it's one of those things like the uncertainty principle-- whatever clever experiment you devise to do away with it, you will find nature somehow compensated for it. it is an immutable law. if i tried to change the past, i would find that the uncertainty in the displacement process results in my changing the past of a different universe which i had never observed before. or if somehow i was, in fact, in the same universe, i would find that a near infinite number of unlikely-yet-possible quantum interactions all took place such that the effects of my actions were completely in agreement with what i had previously observed. this is why no one ever tries to 'save' the past-- it seems an immutable law that anything you have observed, is.

 

take heart, however, there is a way to exploit the laws of physics to produce an interesting form of proof. it is somewhat complex, and the protocol was devised by a smarter man than i, for a mission substantially more imporant than mine. but, if approved, it may provide some of you with the kind of proof you desire.

 

if we used a delayed choice event form of proof, here is how it would be experienced, first by me, then by you. (i will use arbitrary day names, but don't think they litterally apply to actual days of the week)

 

here is how i experience the events:

 

first we would recall the bridge from sunday, your time.

 

then we would reinsert the bridge to thursday your time. on thursday your time, i would post a request for questions. the questions would have to be ones that can be answered in a few short words. the questions can not involve prediction of the future of course, can not require the use of numbers or special characters, can not be overly lengthy in terms of how many words they require.

 

next, we would wait uuntil a question or two has been asked, and we will read the questions. let say questions are posted on friday.

 

then, we will recall the bridge and reinsert it to wednesday your time. on wednesday your time, i will post the answers to the question in an encrypted form.

 

then we recall the bridge and reinsert it to saturday your time. on saturday your time, i post instructions for deciphering the encrypted answers.

 

here is how you experience the events:

 

one day, i stop posting.

 

sometime later, i post a message that contains encrypted text.

 

again, i appear to stop posting for a time.

 

sometime later, i post a message that asks for questions.

 

someone or several someones reply to this message by asking simple questions.

 

again, i appear to stop posting for a time.

 

sometime later, i post the decryption instructions. when decrypted, you find that the initial message, which i posted earlier, contains the answers to questions before those questions were even asked.

 

the decryption instructions would be simple, capable of being performed without the use of computers. you'll note that i can't just post the unencrypted answers for two reasons: one is that it creates the same potential for forking that has been discussed extensively earlier. but let us imagine that a fork could not occur. if i posted the unencrypted answers to questions before the questions were asked, all you would observe would be first me answering a question, then someone else posting an question that everyone already knows the answer to.

 

so you would observe me first, i posting something like: "blue"

 

and then later, someone asks me: "what is your favorite color".

 

the question asker would immediately be accused of collusion with me, and the whole thing would appear to be nothing more than a self-fullfilling prophecy.

 

therefore i must encrypt the answers until after the questions are asked. i also must be sure to answer questions from several individuals, including some regulars or otherwise trusted individuals.

 

would people find observing an event of this sort to be convincing? or would it suffer from the same sorts of problems that the factoring issue has suffered from. this sort of event is rather expensive to us, in terms of both manpower and energy. you'll note that the protocol requires four separate insertions.

 

>What is "ms"?

 

ms is microsingularity. these are singularities with event-horizons which are incredibly small-- smaller than a proton. in essence, these are ultra-tiny black holes. there is a lot of debate as to what lies inside them-- whether the matter inside them has collapsed into an infinitely small point or the center has volume as well as mass. my bunkmate fort rochester used to insist that experimental physics can never resolve the debate. i don't whether he is correct on that point or not. these will first be produced in the high-energy collisions at cern in europe within the first several years of operation of its upcoming accelerator. does this qualify as a future prediction? it really shouldn't because it's already on record that this is going to occur.

 

>What is a "temp field"?

 

a temporal field. technically all objects produce them, and they dictate how an object and objects near it pass through time. the temporal field of accelerating matter is weaker than at rest matter. photons have the weakest fields of all-- either 0 or incredibly close to it. the important thing is that microsingularities can be used to actually create negative temporal fields-- in essences, objects within those fields can travel backwards in time. often, temp field is used just to refer to negative fields, though technically, positive ones are the norm.

 

>What is the significance of "on the order of 75kg"?

 

that was just my rough estimate for how powerful a field would have to be to transport a human being, more or less. The military has these kinds of power sources, we do not. to put things in perspective, i believe the net weight of the entire bridge is under 1.5 grams. in reality, though, you'd have to be able to send back significantly larger amounts of matter if you're going to displace a human being. for one thing, he'll have to carry his own temporal displacement equipment with him so he can make multiple trips (and get back to when he started). and his own power source. and some sort of machinery (like a car) to transport all the equipment spatially, unless you want it to be immobile.

 

this is the beauty of the entangled bridge method. the power requirements are minute by comparison (though still more substantial than we'd like). it's a more elegant solution. I read somewhere that during the race to the moon, both the americans and the soviets had rocket engines that could get to orbit, but none that could get to the moon. the americans spent years and millions of usd designing a sleek new rocket engine that was more efficient and better designed in every way. the soviets, meanwhile, created a new rocket that had 30 of their old style engines all fused onto it, and ended up beating the americans on that stage of the race. i don't know if the story's true, but it reminded me of the two approaches to time travel. the military can invest significant resources into making a lightweight ultrapowerful energy source and send people, powersouce, singularity, containment, and automobile back. but we, with our limited resources, have managed to do something almost as good by being elegant and efficient.

 

>why are you looking for "John Titor" here?

 

we're not looking for him personally. he has nothing to say to us, i assure you. we are looking for people who communicated with him, because we believe his story, although he was either from a different origin universe (than us) or else he intentionally lied about a few things. one theory is that he listed some of his dates in ym rather than ad-- either out of some intention to cloak his own foreknowledge or, less likely, out of habit or error. the era conversions have been the cause of countless such confusion among laypeople, but we're skeptical a member of the military's "time corps" would unintentionally use ym when speaking to an audience using the ad system.

 

in any case, i am not looking for titor-- just people who corresponded with him. we've been informed by a number of people that a few crucial details of his communication have gone undocumented in public and remain known to a few who directly spoke with him.

 

>Gregory, is the sun in very bad condition, in 2046?

 

no, the sun is fine as far as i know. i haven't seen it in about two years, but it's definitely still out there.

 

you know, the amazing thing is, the sun and the stars couldn't shine without quantum tunneling-- a phenomenon where something can appear to "go through" a barrier. like something in a box spontaneously disappearing and immediately reappearing on the outside of the box. it's incredibly unlikely-- incredibly improbable. but because of the uncertaintly principle, it must be possible-- there is some finite probability that it will occur.

 

for a long time, people assumed such a thing could never actually happen. turns out, protons naturally repel each other when they're far away (electrostatically), but will fuse if sufficiently close together. so how can two far apart protons ever manage to get close enough together for fusion to occur? the answer is quantum tunneling. it's incredibly improbable, but there are so many protons in a star that it happens all the time. every time you look up and see the sun or the stars, you're looking at the results of miracles-- incredibly improbable events that managed, somehow, to occur.

 

no matter what i have to pretend every sabbath i spend in public, i am not a religious man. but that bit about the sun makes me feel, just a little, spiritual. maybe. or maybe just poetic. no one around here thinks it's particularly profound, but i keep insisting that it is.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

there is another story about the russians and the americans, 1 is the americans spent millions designing a pen to write in zero gravity, the russians used a pencil.

 

probably bs as well but its still funny.

 

id love to see your delayed choice event proof work, ill quite happily ask a few questions 2 see what happens.

 

despite in the paragraph before u say that if you wher to "go back" before now, you would end up in a different universe, so how exactly do you expect it to work? epcrypted answers or not, this seems 2 me like a bit of a contradiction.

 

BUT if you wher to offer this as proof, i think it would be hard to deny.

 

although i wonder why you cant have answers that contain numbers, is this because the encrypted response you post will be so vague that no matter what people ask you can make it seem like you answered their questions? would it not be acceptable for someone to ask you a simple mathmatical equation that you could "encrypt" the answer too?

 

from my short time here, if u answered a question from RMT, darby or ovrlrdlegion (and definatly 1 of mine!) in the way that you describe, u might actually convince me that u are in fact from the future, which for me would be like god coming out of the sky and sayin hello

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

one myth I would like to dispel is that i somehow knew ahead of time what 600 digit number was going to be posted and used that foreknowledge to take the time to deduce a "pre-made" solution that was ready to post.

and

as to recent requests that we factor more numbers-- that is highly improbable. it was a minor miracle to get approval to do it once, and we haven't had particularly good results from that initial experiment.

And yet, the apparant "coincidence" that you will not be able to factor any more numbers (especially the other number that was provided to you) does significantly add to the suspicion that you DID know the factors of the seemingly "unknown" person who gave you that first number.

 

I have given you a valid means that would be a much more convincing "proof". Yet so far you have not been able to achieve what my means requires. Instead you complicate it (no doubt to prevent one from falsifying your claim) with:

 

if we used a delayed choice event form of proof, here is how it would be experienced, first by me, then by you. (i will use arbitrary day names, but don't think they litterally apply to actual days of the week)

 

here is how i experience the events:

 

first we would recall the bridge from sunday, your time.

 

then we would reinsert the bridge to thursday your time. on thursday your time, i would post a request for questions. the questions would have to be ones that can be answered in a few short words. the questions can not involve prediction of the future of course, can not require the use of numbers or special characters, can not be overly lengthy in terms of how many words they require.

 

next, we would wait uuntil a question or two has been asked, and we will read the questions. let say questions are posted on friday.

 

then, we will recall the bridge and reinsert it to wednesday your time. on wednesday your time, i will post the answers to the question in an encrypted form.

 

then we recall the bridge and reinsert it to saturday your time. on saturday your time, i post instructions for deciphering the encrypted answers.

 

here is how you experience the events:

 

one day, i stop posting.

 

sometime later, i post a message that contains encrypted text.

 

again, i appear to stop posting for a time.

 

sometime later, i post a message that asks for questions.

 

someone or several someones reply to this message by asking simple questions.

 

again, i appear to stop posting for a time.

 

sometime later, i post the decryption instructions. when decrypted, you find that the initial message, which i posted earlier, contains the answers to questions before those questions were even asked.

 

the decryption instructions would be simple, capable of being performed without the use of computers. you'll note that i can't just post the unencrypted answers for two reasons: one is that it creates the same potential for forking that has been discussed extensively earlier. but let us imagine that a fork could not occur. if i posted the unencrypted answers to questions before the questions were asked, all you would observe would be first me answering a question, then someone else posting an question that everyone already knows the answer to.

Whether you have realized it or not, your alleged "problem" with "changing what someone has observed" makes some fairly clear statements about your ability to do what you claim you are doing in these posts. IOW, there is a loophole you have missed. I am not going to divulge it right now, because it will become clear what that loophole is (and you will be caught in your untruth) as you continue with your hoax. I am quite sure Darby knows and has identified this loophole, and I know he will also see the value in not discussing it right now.

 

As to the unbelievably complex means defined above for your "delayed choice" attempt at a proof, the only reason you need to go this far is because (again) it is the only way you can prevent your hoax from being falsified. There is absolutely no reason that you would have to "encrypt" your answers other than to ensure that you can produce an "encryption cipher" that will cover any question that may be asked. You've made this complex for a reason, and that reason is to cover your tracks.

 

First, if you are who/what you claim you have already changed our timeline just by intervening. Second, there are PLENTY of facts from the future which are so miniscule, so innocuous to the overall potential of our current timeline that you could easily share any one of these facts without a serious timeline disruption. I could give you any one of a number of such examples of just how you can do this (and you can choose from any one of a number of others). But for the purpose of illustrating what I am talking about to other readers, here is ONE of MANY examples:

 

People die every day. And we record those deaths in newspapers in the obituaries. Now before I give the details, I am sure one reason you would refuse would be "I can't tell you who is going to die because that person could read it and it could drastically change the timeline." But my example does not require that you tell us, specifically, who will pass. Rather, you would only need to supply some small, innocuous fact from a SPECIFIC person's obituary (one that I ask for) that will prove you had access to that information in the future. The example would go like this:

 

Go to the LA Times obituaries dated Mon/Day/2006.

 

Starting with the 1st obituary, count until you reach the "nth" obituary record.

 

Tell me the BIRTH DATE of the person who represents the "nth" obituary record.

 

Skip to the "nth+5" obituary record.

 

Tell me the FIRST name in this obituary that is listed as one of the people who the deceased is "survived by".

 

I am sure you are intelligent enough to see how this works, and I think most others reading here can see how it works (and is not on the magnitude of giving away lottery numbers). So now I have given you TWO valid ways to prove your claim.

 

Step up... I am not going to be so easy on you for much longer.

 

RMT

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm disappointed you will not factor the 250 decimal number I provided. This should be a trivial exercise given the rate you factored the 600 decimal number. The independence of the experiment is in question and no amount of typing can dismiss the doubts expressed. As for your alternate form of proof, it seems to be much harder to accomplish and contains more risks then simply repeating the orginal fatcoring exercise. I can't imagine that going to such extraordinary lengths would be easier or safer then factoring a 250 digit number.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

okay, here's a 500-some digit number for you. I don't see how this is going to prove anything. And I'll tell you something else-- if you expect me to type this number into a computer every 108 minutes, forget it. HAHAHAH

I don't get it, what are you talking about when you say "every 108 minutes"? I noticed that these are also the last three digits of your IP address :)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Greg,

 

I have not posted on here for quite some time.

 

However some of your wording has caught my direct attention. Quite clever I might add.

 

Here I am. I have spoken directly with John Titor by email when he was here in this timeline.

 

What is it you are seeking?

 

You may send me a private message if it is too private to post here.

 

-Pamela

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the fundamental problems with Mr. Tarasoff's claims is one that both Darby and myself have been attempting to point out: Namely that he comes offering HIS VIEW of what might constitute "solid proof" that he is a TT'er. IOW, this is something a true hoaxer would not only WISH to do, but would PLAN to do. And so they would work up some clever scheme to be able to give THAT FORM of proof and not necessarily ANY random, but also valid, form of proof.

 

Now that he has "used up" the "factor a large number" scheme, he has moved on to his next "proof scheme", where he is laying out the rules of how it has to go down (i.e. encypting answers to questions, etc.). That is another big red flag, folks, when it comes to being scientific and falsifiable.

 

You will note a common theme in all of Mr. Tarasoff's schemes, and that is that HE eventually has some form of control over the parameters of how "proof" is demonstrated. Thus, restricting how and what types of information is collected to support his "proof". Instead, what needs to happen is Mr. Tarasoff needs to be able to do is submit to BOTH my, AND Darby's "tests of proof". That is because myself and Darby provide different, independent, & scientifically valid means to verify (or dispel) Mr. Tarasoff's claims.

 

Let's again examine his explanation of his "process" along with its need for "encryption":

 

here is how you experience the events:

 

one day, i stop posting.

 

sometime later, i post a message that contains encrypted text.

 

again, i appear to stop posting for a time.

 

sometime later, i post a message that asks for questions.

 

someone or several someones reply to this message by asking simple questions .

 

again, i appear to stop posting for a time.

 

sometime later, i post the decryption instructions. when decrypted, you find that the initial message, which i posted earlier, contains the answers to questions before those questions were even asked.

(Emphasis is mine) But note right here where he defines "simple questions". No doubt we will be hearing what his restrictions will be on the types of questions we can ask him. I claim he has no need for encrypting his answers, other than to prevent his scheme from being falsified. Let's now deal with his reasoning on this:

you'll note that i can't just post the unencrypted answers for two reasons: one is that it creates the same potential for forking that has been discussed extensively earlier. but let us imagine that a fork could not occur. if i posted the unencrypted answers to questions before the questions were asked, all you would observe would be first me answering a question, then someone else posting an question that everyone already knows the answer to .

All this represents is his "sales speech" to try to get you to buy his (unfalsifiable) form of proof, over another superior method of verifying his claim. Note how he first makes a strong claim about why he physically cannot do it without encrypting (which is not supported at all by science, I might add), but then goes on to try to convince you why it would not be a good idea. But the words I have highlighted are not true, and I can show how... and I can re-structure his test for proof without the need for any encryption at all.

The false thought is in the words "that everyone already knows the answer to." There are many more ways to structure the "answer from the future" test than the ONE form you propose here. I have offered another (with the Obituary example) in my last reply to you. In fact, here is the much simpler test:

 

1) I am going to post a question to you in my immediate future on this forum. I do not currently know what that question will be, but will know before the time I post it.

 

2) I will formulate this question with another (trusted) forum member via back-channel PM.

 

3) The question will be general, but also highly specific in that it will require some number as a measurement, or perhaps even a number resulting from a calculation. IOW, you cannot limit the detail of the question we ask.

 

4) I will post the question to you on May 20th, as a new thread in this TT Claims Forum. I will even tell you right now that the title of the thread will be "Question for Gregory Tarasoff".

 

5) At the Time of this post going up ONLY myself and ONE other (trusted) forum member will know what the precise question is going to be.

 

6) In order to prove your claim, you should be able to post the answer to the question as a new thread AT LEAST one full day before I post it (May 20th). So your task is then given as posting a new thread to this TT Claims forum any Time on May 18th (two days, to be conservative). And we can even agree in this current Time what the title of the new thread should be. Why not entitle the thread you post on May 18th as "Answer from Gregory Tarasoff" just to be consistent with my question?

 

7) We can even go one step further... I can agree to have formulated the question I am going to ask you BEFORE your May 18th deadline. Not only will the other (trusted) forum member be able to verify that I shared the question with him before May 18th, but I can also write down this question and post it to ANYONE in the US, and it will get a post-date PRIOR to May 18th. That will prove that the question was registered even a DAY before you have to answer it (but unknown to your present-day, hoaxer self). IOW, it will prevent us from denying that the question you answer on May 18th is different from the question we agreed to ask you. To state it yet differently, we will provide absolute verification that is positively falsifiable if we try to "rig" the results.

 

Simple. Extremely simple. And no matter how much you protest that "it can't be done" by physics you know that we don't know today, I assure you that either this example, or the Obituary example, or any other number of REASONABLE tests could help prove your claims. But as long as they can only be means of proof that YOU DEFINE the parameters for, then I am afraid you should just move on and abandon your hoax. Because there are people smart enough to know how all of these Information Games can be executed.

 

RMT

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Call For Votes - A Reasonable Test?

 

By The Way (BTW):

 

I would be very interested in whether or not others believe that the "test" I have suggested to Mr. Tarasoff is fair and would help "prove" his claims? (Test quoted below) Please vote, if you feel so inclined:

 

<FORM METHOD=POST ACTION="http://www.timetravelinstitute.com/ttiforum/dopoll.php"><INPUT TYPE=HIDDEN NAME="pollname" VALUE="1147566196RainmanTime">

 

Is RainmanTime's Q&A Post Reasonable & Fair?

 

<input type="radio" name="option" value="1" />Yes. If someone can pass this test, I would have a hard time not believing their claim to be from the future.

 

<input type="radio" name="option" value="2" />No. I think the suggested test is not fair or has flaws that would not make it a valid Time Traveler Test.

 

<INPUT TYPE=Submit NAME=Submit VALUE="Submit vote" class="buttons"></form>

 

1) I am going to post a question to you in my immediate future on this forum. I do not currently know what that question will be, but will know before the time I post it.

 

2) I will formulate this question with another (trusted) forum member via back-channel PM.

 

3) The question will be general, but also highly specific in that it will require some number as a measurement, or perhaps even a number resulting from a calculation. IOW, you cannot limit the detail of the question we ask.

 

4) I will post the question to you on May 20th, as a new thread in this TT Claims Forum. I will even tell you right now that the title of the thread will be "Question for Gregory Tarasoff".

 

5) At the Time of this post going up ONLY myself and ONE other (trusted) forum member will know what the precise question is going to be.

 

6) In order to prove your claim, you should be able to post the answer to the question as a new thread AT LEAST one full day before I post it (May 20th). So your task is then given as posting a new thread to this TT Claims forum any Time on May 18th (two days, to be conservative). And we can even agree in this current Time what the title of the new thread should be. Why not entitle the thread you post on May 18th as "Answer from Gregory Tarasoff" just to be consistent with my question?

 

7) We can even go one step further... I can agree to have formulated the question I am going to ask you BEFORE your May 18th deadline. Not only will the other (trusted) forum member be able to verify that I shared the question with him before May 18th, but I can also write down this question and post it to ANYONE in the US, and it will get a post-date PRIOR to May 18th. That will prove that the question was registered even a DAY before you have to answer it (but unknown to your present-day, hoaxer self). IOW, it will prevent us from denying that the question you answer on May 18th is different from the question we agreed to ask you. To state it yet differently, we will provide absolute verification that is positively falsifiable if we try to "rig" the results.

If most of the community agrees it is a reasonable test, then we can add this to the "Standard Time Traveler's Claims Test" thread I have been talking about building.

RMT

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rainman,

 

One of the fundamental problems with Mr. Tarasoff's claims is one that both Darby and myself have been attempting to point out: Namely that he comes offering HIS VIEW of what might constitute "solid proof" that he is a TT'er. IOW, this is something a true hoaxer would not only WISH to do, but would PLAN to do. And so they would work up some clever scheme to be able to give THAT FORM of proof and not necessarily ANY random, but also valid, form of proof

Yes. The main problem with Greg's "proof" is that he chose the game and he refereed it too. Its a bit too cuddly for the would be time traveler to have sole control of the game. A lot like a carney game.

 

Sure, it would take a very long time for a super computer to factor the number provided by CubsFan. But if, as was suggested, CubsFan is Greg's schill then the problem is straight forward.

 

We can differentiate or we can integrate a problem. Integrating the factors is much easier if you take the time to generate primes and multiply them together to arrive at your 500 digit number...i.e., integrate the factors. ;)

 

I didn't hear CubsFan protest whent he suggestion was made.

 

Its not an accusation - just a suggestion of a possible scenario. Sheldon has posted here but his opinion of the forum, based on his past statements other than here, is rather negative.

 

I think that "Greg" is actually Sheldon "ProfessorFaustus" Ross - time traveler from UCLA's Rubgy Club and graduate division math department. He's been asking a lot of questions about how to hoax a time travel story recently. :)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...