Jump to content

This is jon titor


John Titor
 Share

Recommended Posts

RMT, I'm not sure I understand what you're asking for when you use the word "quantify" as it applies to measuring "divergence". Are you asking for an equation, formula... ? Forgive my ignorance. I'm an automotive technician by trade and occasionally accept overseas contracts. I've not afforded myself the opportunity to earn degrees in physics and/or related subjects. Sometimes I feel like Captain America did when speaking with Tony Stark. "Speak English!" LOL. I'm not asking for tutorials. I just want to be more clear when it comes to what you're looking for.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 32
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

RMT, I'm not sure I understand what you're asking for when you use the word "quantify" as it applies to measuring "divergence". Are you asking for an equation, formula... ? Forgive my ignorance. I'm an automotive technician by trade and occasionally accept overseas contracts. I've not afforded myself the opportunity to earn degrees in physics and/or related subjects. Sometimes I feel like Captain America did when speaking with Tony Stark. "Speak English!" LOL. I'm not asking for tutorials. I just want to be more clear when it comes to what you're looking for.

Quite simple, really. Any percentage is based on some sort of units of measurement. They are quoting divergence as a "percentage", but one part of what I am really asking is "percentage of what?" In other words, describe the units that would constitute 100% divergence. The reason that Titor's words mean nothing is because he says it is an empirical measurement. Well, when you look up empirical it says:

 

based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.

So that means it must be based on actual measurements, yes? I am just asking what those measurements are (their units) and what standard of these units is used to represent 100%.

Put another way, here is the formula for percentage:

 

[(actual measurement - 100% standard)/100% standard]*100

 

Lets' say that my nominal weight is 190 pounds. To figure out the percentage I am overweight if I suddenly eat too many burgers for a few weeks and step on the scale and now see that I weight 205 pounds, I would calculate this as:

 

[(205 pounds-190 pounds)/190 pounds]*100 = 7.89% overweight

 

Simple, right? Titor, or anyone who claims Titor's "divergence" is real should be able to quantify that divergence in terms of the units of measurement and defining what value in those units equates to 100 percent. So when Titor and his sycophants claim that "The divergence for that window is somewhere near .0002377%", then they should be able to define that percentage in terms of the formulate I just provided above.

 

Make sense?

 

RMT

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And BTW, I maintain that the Titor hoaxers cleverly chose a "percent divergence" for the explicit reason that there are no units associated with it that they would have to explain. And when someone who understands science and math asks the question that I do, Group Titor just did a bunch of handwaving & misdirection, none of which is valid nor answers the basic question.

 

You can NEVER understand what a percentage means unless and until you understand the value and the units for which the 100% standard is defined. Period.

 

RMT

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RMT, I can't thank you enough for having taken the time to answer my question. Your answer actually makes perfect sense to me. If I understand it correctly, no real variables were provided by Titor in his equation ( or lack thereof ) for measuring "divergence". Empirical sounds like another vague and all too easy way for J.T. to avoid providing any real answers. It's a recurring theme with him, isn't it? Always a way out using non-sensical, confusing vaguery.

 

Again, I appreciate your efforts in helping me understand English!

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're most welcome. But as I teacher, I just can't help myself. :)

 

Empirical sounds like another vague and all too easy way for J.T. to avoid providing any real answers.

Yes, and what is most ironic about Group Titor's selection of that word is that it means their metric MUST be based on DIRECT MEASUREMENTS, which means they should definitely be able to quantify it in terms of units and defining their 100% standard. So they picked precisely the WRONG "fluff" word and those of us learned in science knew it right away.

 

It's a recurring theme with him, isn't it? Always a way out using non-sensical, confusing vaguery.

Most definitely. And the problem with non-scientific people is they simply wish to try to interpret what THEY think Titor meant when he used vague words, rather than just understanding and admitting they were vague on purpose specifically to avoid being specific. If I am free to "re-interpret" your actual words into anything I desire, then I can make your own words say anything I want to. And that is pure nonsense. If we cannot take Titor's word literally on his very own words (which is all we have from him), then the story falls apart into nonsense very quickly.

RMT

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 6 years later...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...