This is jon titor

[John Titor]

there is i new warning i must tell you the flux in the time space paradox has caused me to stay longer then i want too..

 

 

[Gpa]

there is i new warning i must tell you the flux in the time space paradox has caused me to stay longer then i want too..

It would also seem "the flux in the time space paradox" has affected your ability to capitalize, spell, and use punctuation. Oh the humanities! I hope you can get that fixed soon.

[RainmanTime]

Oh the humanities!

 

RMT

 

 

[Gpa]

Now that's funny!!

 

 

[Timetravel_00]

I'm sorry, but this is john titor.

 

 

[Einstein]

I'm sorry, but this is john titor.

I don't think you'll find anybody that cares around here. Including me!

[vodkafan]

I don't think you'll find anybody that cares around here. Including me!

[RainmanTime]

I'm sorry, but this is john titor.

Did you bring the thing I told you about, old buddy?RMT

 

 

[Guest Guest]

Did you bring the thing I told you about, old buddy?RMT

If he didn't, I'm happy to supply his share of the peanut butter and lube.

[Timetravel_00]

Sorry, but do I know you?

 

 

[Guest Guest]

Sorry, but do I know you?

Judging by the assortment of goodies Rainman brought, I'd say you're about to know all of us very well.

[J.T._9663]

I can only imagine that, judging from the general feeling, if a John were to return, most of you would not know if you fell over him. I dont either, but Im not ruling out any possibilities. What would make you 'convinced' if a John claimant surfaced? Would you need video? Not enough maybe. Would you need a personal tour of the drive distortion unit?

 

I would imagine that a John returning would be made to jump proof hoops in here. Maybe we should all just realize that everything JOhn wrote has come to pass within an approx 2.5 percent divergence. The term 'war' in the original posts is where people seem to drop and disbelieve the Titor messages. Civil 'war'....look around and there has been a war between the governments and the people. Its not televised or covered in as much but its been there a long time.

 

Cheers

 

 

[vodkafan]

It's this kind of JT apologist post that fogs the issue..... J.T._9663 you could even be the same poster with a different account....I am waiting for the other guy to come back and answer some questions. He either is the the original JT or he is not..but either way, if he can't /won't answer simple questions , of what possible use is he to anybody? He's like a ham sandwich at a Barmitzvah....completely redundant and without purpose.

 

 

[RainmanTime]

Maybe we should all just realize that everything JOhn wrote has come to pass within an approx 2.5 percent divergence.

And maybe you should provide some veridical evidence to support that claim? You could start by giving a scientific quantification of how one measures divergence, and from there proceed on to your evidence that EVERYTHING that Titor wrote about has come to pass within that 2.5% "divergence."I expect, rather than begin to act on this challenge, instead you will just post non-scientific mumbo jumbo about how I should see your interpretation of events to meet John's predictions. Just like you want to re-interpret "civil war" to mean anything you wish.

 

Take a look at my post count, pal. This ain't my first rodeo with clowns like you.

 

RMT

 

 

[J.T._9663]

Vodkafan, you've got some good points. If a dog doesn't act like a dog, does that mean its a cat? There is obvious 'expectations' to as what a 'real' John would say or do. Is there an Excaliber test that would appease your minds/bring unwanted government attention to John if he exposed himself without a care?

 

RainmanTime, a scientific explanation to support my claim that everything John said has come to pass within a 2.5 percent divergence. If we drop our expectations and ego regarding all this, then seeing things clearly becomes very easy. I have heard of posers claiming to be John. I can assure you I am not using a sock puppet. My initials are J.T. And I just like those 4 numbers.

 

I would be happy to civilly debate how I see how Johns predictions have come true. I ask just that you keep any questions in point form.

 

Where would you like to start my friend? As for the clown jab, I can see you have a well-sharpened wit

 

Cheers

 

 

[RainmanTime]

RainmanTime, a scientific explanation to support my claim that everything John said has come to pass within a 2.5 percent divergence. If we drop our expectations and ego regarding all this, then seeing things clearly becomes very easy.

I am not interested in subjective interpretations. But quite frankly, that is just about all you have to go on. We've seen this all before on this forum. And it is not about "dropping expectations and ego", unless the expectations you wish me to drop are ones based on the scientific method. If so, then it is a non-starter for me.

 

I would be happy to civilly debate how I see how Johns predictions have come true. I ask just that you keep any questions in point form.

I am not interested in "how you see" they have come true. Again, this implies subjectivity, and that is all too over-used when it comes to "proving" Titor's predictions have come to pass. I am interested in you presenting an objective, measurable, quantifiable case for the claim you have made.For example: It seems pretty clear that the Olympics have continued to be held, every two years, after the year that Titor predicted they should have ceased. Your task is now to somehow explain how that clear failure of a prediction somehow fits within a <2.5% "divergence" allocation... and in order to do that, you will have to define said divergence in a deterministic manner, as opposed to a stochastic manner.

 

If you do that, I may not have any questions at all. But I may have some refutations, or corrections, depending on how faithful to science your case is laid out.

 

RMT

 

 

[vodkafan]

J.T. _9963 I will wait until Timetravel_OO returns so that he can answer pertinent questions himself.

 

 

[J.T._9663]

My apologies for the late reply. I cannot always take time for composing my thoughts and an expression.

 

Vodkafan, I can assure you I am 'not' claiming to be anyone but myself. The website owner must have logs of my email address to signup and I'm sure the ability to back-trace these things would be available to them. TT_OO I believe might be the man you're looking for. Call it instinct, gut, intuition, I don't know. Its just what I believe. Look at 'their' age...

 

RMT, after careful thought, and curious pondering, I think that If I were to have something valuable that otherwise might be corrupted, might be attacked, or even lost, I would suspect that a select few 'guards' of information would have the honed ability of experience to 'keep the wolves' at bay. I can appreciate and understand that its been a very long time and a very long road for some.

 

There is some confusion though, as I am unsure of who believes the Titor story, who doesnt believe, what each person hopes to gain, what knowledge they are seeking. This makes communication difficult.

 

My personal belief is that once you look at MWI, it becomes clear as day that the 'theory' seems to be 'for all practical purposes', an umberella or maybe a glove of idea that fits snugly over the existing, seemingly 'unconnected' realms in not only science, but paranormal, personal and other areas that are 'mysterious'. To digest or understand the Titor tale, the only way any of it makes any internally-consistent sense is by using the backdrop of MWI as, at least, a working hypothesis and thus factor into ones thinking. (Or, more accurately, replace our awareness. Much like a 3d understanding of our surroundings and nonlocal surroundings being replaced with a consistent 4d awareness.)

 

Otherwise, then the story doesnt make any sense. I think this is where people have big trouble in digesting the 'predictions.

 

An example is with the seemingly failed 08 Olympics prediction. On the surface, the prediction never happened. To most of us, this is a clear example of why John 'must' be a fake. The Original John was from an approx 2 percent divergence worldline to our own, or his being equal distance relative. Now, I dont know much about the why's, and answers, but someone mentioned somewhere that the 08 Olympics were marred by controversy at the time and they mentioned an approx amount of protesters. For this, we will say, hypothetically there were 100 individual protestors. Now, If I am to 'consider a 'resolvable conclusion' that somehow is a working explanation on John's validity, and MWI's, then the only explanation that I can come up with is that approx 2 percent (divergence) of Protesters, who would have otherwise possibly been the 'needle that broke the camels back', for whatever reasons (divergence) never showed up.

 

Sounds silly on the outset, how could approx 2 protesters be of any difference right?

 

Heres the intresting part.

 

it is very possible that the percentage of protesters 'missing' could well have been the most vocal and If they did happen to attend, they might have inspired the other protesters to be more adamant and vocal about the issue. The way I see it, the only way to take John's predictions seriously is to account for the MWI. Without it,the Titor story is full of seemingly 'failed' predictions and inconsistencies.

 

Now, as debate is often marred with bringing triviality, ego and personal attacks, I can only illustrate this with a very real example of divergence.

 

I have a favourite band, as we all do. Now, I know my favourite musical group consisted of 4 members. 2 were highly creative and innovative, but for the most part, the other 2 were accomplished, just not as creative.

 

Ok, so Band X, before they become popular, decide to enter a battle of the bands with 24 other musical groups of 4 members each. Again, this is just an example, so stay with me.

 

Band X is 4 members. 25 groups of 4 is 100 bandmembers.

 

What if there were an approx 2 percent divergence? Is it possible that my 2 percent, my 2 favourite band members did not attend the battle of the bands. a 2 percent divergence.

 

My favourite band never go on to fame, and I never hear amazing songs from them.

 

Instead of the 2 percent, the 2 creative people going on to being a very visible and major part of musical history, they were not.

 

In my eyes, this explanation works 'only' if we consider MWI.

 

Trying to understand most of what Titor said 'without' the MWI is flawed and really is damn confusing.

 

I think any of John's claims can be explained. You just need to accept the MWI, and it all makes a helluva lot more sense.

 

Im fairly confident any 'confusion' in the John story can be found to be 'internally consistent' in the MWI framework/mindset.

 

Cheers Gentlemen.

 

 

[Darby]

Trying to understand most of what Titor said 'without' the MWI is flawed and really is damn confusing.I think any of John's claims can be explained. You just need to accept the MWI, and it all makes a helluva lot more sense.Im fairly confident any 'confusion' in the John story can be found to be 'internally consistent' in the MWI framework/mindset.

So explain the Many Worlds Interpretation (of Quantum Mechanics). I have to add that it is most definitely not a "mindset" or a philosophy. It is a physical principle of quantum mechanics that attempts to unify QM with General Relativity.To help you along a bit: One thing that it does not propose is that the physical laws of daughter universes differ from the parent universes. In other words, stating that anything and everything that one can possibly imagine can occur (hand wave - hand wave, WOO "The physical laws changed over there in the other universe.") is not a valid statement attributable to MWI, i.e. gadgets with a gross mass of 225 kg do not contain black holes that Chevy trucks can drive through in this or any other of the multiple worlds branching off from our local reality.

 

 

[titorite]

. The website owner must have logs of my email address

He may... Considering the bouncing emails and all that.. but the first one used.. IF you gave the same info to Mop he would have it. If your information were genuine. I for one do not believe Titor would ever post anything in this day and NSA age. His writings kinda indicated something to the effect of when we had anonymity and .. in this day and age... we don't. Meh.... forward progress goes.

[RainmanTime]

Nothing you are saying is unique. It has all been hashed over and over again. You will not accept what I have to say, but that does not mean I am not correct.

 

My personal belief is that once you look at MWI, it becomes clear as day that the 'theory' seems to be 'for all practical purposes', an umberella or maybe a glove of idea that fits snugly over the existing, seemingly 'unconnected' realms in not only science, but paranormal, personal and other areas that are 'mysterious'. To digest or understand the Titor tale, the only way any of it makes any internally-consistent sense is by using the backdrop of MWI as, at least, a working hypothesis and thus factor into ones thinking. (Or, more accurately, replace our awareness. Much like a 3d understanding of our surroundings and nonlocal surroundings being replaced with a consistent 4d awareness.)

The problem is you are "interpreting" MWI in the way you must in order to make Titor's story unfalsifiable. It is the same "interpretive dance" you are doing in all your posts. When something is unfalsifiable, that means it is not scientific. And your interpretation of MWI has nothing whatsoever to do with the (brief) paper where MWI was introduced. Your interpretation is the pop-sci interpretation. As such, nothing you have said is by any means scientific support for anything Titor said. The biggest reason is because the entire Titor story is not falsifiable as it stands.

 

Otherwise, then the story doesnt make any sense. I think this is where people have big trouble in digesting the 'predictions.

You do realize there is an entire genre of storytelling where stories do not have to make sense, right? It is called fiction. Occam's Razor applies to the Titor story moreso than any other situation (i.e. ones that are actually falsifiable)

 

An example is with the seemingly failed 08 Olympics prediction. On the surface, the prediction never happened. To most of us, this is a clear example of why John 'must' be a fake. The Original John was from an approx 2 percent divergence worldline to our own, or his being equal distance relative. Now, I dont know much about the why's, and answers, but someone mentioned somewhere that the 08 Olympics were marred by controversy at the time and they mentioned an approx amount of protesters. For this, we will say, hypothetically there were 100 individual protestors. Now, If I am to 'consider a 'resolvable conclusion' that somehow is a working explanation on John's validity, and MWI's, then the only explanation that I can come up with is that approx 2 percent (divergence) of Protesters, who would have otherwise possibly been the 'needle that broke the camels back', for whatever reasons (divergence) never showed up.Sounds silly on the outset, how could approx 2 protesters be of any difference right?Heres the intresting part.

 

it is very possible that the percentage of protesters 'missing' could well have been the most vocal and If they did happen to attend, they might have inspired the other protesters to be more adamant and vocal about the issue. The way I see it, the only way to take John's predictions seriously is to account for the MWI. Without it,the Titor story is full of seemingly 'failed' predictions and inconsistencies.

 

Now, as debate is often marred with bringing triviality, ego and personal attacks, I can only illustrate this with a very real example of divergence.

 

I have a favourite band, as we all do. Now, I know my favourite musical group consisted of 4 members. 2 were highly creative and innovative, but for the most part, the other 2 were accomplished, just not as creative.

 

Ok, so Band X, before they become popular, decide to enter a battle of the bands with 24 other musical groups of 4 members each. Again, this is just an example, so stay with me.

 

Band X is 4 members. 25 groups of 4 is 100 bandmembers.

 

What if there were an approx 2 percent divergence? Is it possible that my 2 percent, my 2 favourite band members did not attend the battle of the bands. a 2 percent divergence.

 

My favourite band never go on to fame, and I never hear amazing songs from them.

 

Instead of the 2 percent, the 2 creative people going on to being a very visible and major part of musical history, they were not.

I asked you to quantify how 2 percent is measured. You did not do it, as I predicted you would not. You gave a subjective description of how you think divergence works. The fact that neither Titor, nor you, can quantifiably define this divergence metric is one of the big things that contributes to the story being unfalsifiable, and thus not scientifically plausible.

 

In my eyes, this explanation works 'only' if we consider MWI.Trying to understand most of what Titor said 'without' the MWI is flawed and really is damn confusing.I think any of John's claims can be explained. You just need to accept the MWI, and it all makes a helluva lot more sense.

 

Im fairly confident any 'confusion' in the John story can be found to be 'internally consistent' in the MWI framework/mindset.

You keep bleating on and on about MWI as if no one is accepting it. You can stop that, because it is quite obvious to anyone who has read Titor's story, and understands what the MWI says, that this *was* the "McGuffin" that Titor was using as the lynchpin for his story. MWI is the very premise which gives rise to his need to introduce the "divergence" metric, which he never quantified (for a reason!).So no one is even arguing with you that MWI is necessary for Titor's story to be "internally consistent." That is accepted, and must be given his story. So you are going on and on about a moot point. Instead, you should be seeking to actually quantify the McGuffin of "divergence" within the context of what the MWI actually has to say from a scientific perspective.

 

Until you do that, you are merely wasting your time, my time, and the time of anyone else who is reading this. Pun completely intended.

 

RMT

 

 

[J.T._9663]

WOnderfully written reply RMT. Thank you for taking the time to convey.

 

I will go back and look at the points you have made. Cheers

 

 

[J.T._9663]

And maybe you should provide some veridical evidence to support that claim? You could start by giving a scientific quantification of how one measures divergence, and from there proceed on to your evidence that EVERYTHING that Titor wrote about has come to pass within that 2.5% "divergence."I expect, rather than begin to act on this challenge, instead you will just post non-scientific mumbo jumbo about how I should see your interpretation of events to meet John's predictions. Just like you want to re-interpret "civil war" to mean anything you wish."It is believed there is some sort of measurable quantum differences in worldlines. I am not an expert on that so I can offer little information."

 

"The divergence measurement refers to the local gravitational field as compared to the point of origin. It is merely an empirical indicator of overall change in a worldline. Some things that are quite different on one worldline have very little effect as time passes and the worldlines appear to "converge" again and look very similar. Worldline changes are not exponential; they act more like chaotic attractors with varying effect depending on their size and location."

 

"I was taught that time travel is strictly a local observation that can only be measured by the experience of an individual or single particle."

 

"10 January 2001 23:10

 

You mentioned a divergence percentage between time lines. How is it possible to measure divergence?

 

The measurement for worldline divergence is an observation variable isolated to the distortion unit. An effective analogy would be a "gravity radar". The unit's sensors take a "snapshot" of the local gravity around the unit before a flight. During travel, this baseline is periodically checked to make sure there are no major changes in the environment that would cause a catastrophic mass failure (brick wall appearing from nowhere). The percentage of VGL divergence from one worldline to another is a calculated guess by the three computers that control the unit based on its starting point. It is useless in describing characteristics of individual worldlines."

 

"Yes, a "ZD" is thought to be impossible. However, consider that an exact entry point "may" not be necessary to get home. The important factor is the path, not the destination. Under multiple world theory, there are an infinite number of "homes" that I could return to that don't have me there. The divergence for that window is somewhere near .0002377%."

 

"Differences between worldlines are measured from the perspective of the time traveler in terms of divergence percentage. The higher the divergence, the more "un-like" your destination worldline looks like compared to your worldline of origin. "

 

"Given that you have a 2.5% divergence from your worldline and the micro-singularities are subject to the same divergence, how do you keep them in phase?

 

Good thinking but that's not exactly the way they work and divergence is not cumulative.

 

Does the divergence extend into N-dimensions? Is the 2.5% the total error or is each dimension subject to the 2.5% divergence individually?

 

Yes, that's a little closer. You should perhaps change the "N" to and "X" to avoid string theory confusion. "

 

Take a look at my post count, pal. This ain't my first rodeo with clowns like you.

 

RMT

[gnostic]

J.T._9663,

 

Bravo!!!

 

 

Don’t forget your gas can!

 

gnostic

 

 

[RainmanTime]

So you have done nothing but quoted Titor's words back to me, and you apparently do not understand that his words say nothing about divergence that is in any way scientific, much less does he quantify the metric. So you have done exactly zero towards what I asked you to do. Try again?RMT