Changing The Universe, One World Line At A Time..?

Tesseract

Tesseract

Temporal Novice
In starting this thread I want publish soon my observations, theories and analyses of the John Titor issue. I hope to collect as much data as possible and condense it in one place.

A new possibility has presented itself mentioned in the "Other John" thread detailing the supposed comments by a John2 in the voice-over youtube video. But thats for later. Theres is no need to post replies here yet. Please be patient as there is a lot of work still to be reviewed. Thats it for now.

\T.
"Tempus Edax Rerum... History has a way of catching up with itself...!"
 
A new possibility has presented itself mentioned in the "Other John" thread detailing the supposed comments by a John2 in the voice-over youtube video.
Click to expand...


I sort of wonder why anyone from the future has to use Stephen Hawking's voice machine to disguise there voice, bearing in mind that by definition nobody from now would know who they were.
 
Re: Changing The Universe, One World Line At A Tim

Still going thru the transcripts and I still have to condense down the 14pages I have
prepared so far but... since you posted in this thread and could not wait. <grin!>

Okay, lets open it with a "hypercube" and play it out in hypothetical JT2 context, as in
the LarryH youtube video... and the strange page that recently popped up on JTF site
which I recall is run by Haber. Below I have the table re-sorted in date ascending order.
(http://www.johntitorfoundation.com/)

I will try to word this correctly... could these be Divergence recordings from different
worldlines? Who the hell knows BUT what if some group of TTx's? were mapping a worldline
box or hypercube for want of a better description? (Even a tetrahedron may work also.)

So on the "baseline square" - say 1998[L0 L1 L2 L3] you generate values.
And 10yrs later uptime top range readings from 2009[L0 L1 L2 L3].

Is it theoretically possible in a Multiverse system to create a range of divergences for
worldlines in a 10 year window that can used to map, and interpolate a zone of worldline
Divergences that have one thing in common - no N-War AND with continued advancements in
sciences, research AND bio-tech that did not occur in their timeline. Basically a "safe"
group of similiar worldlines...

Okay - why?
Because "JT" would not be the only one using any of their reputed 10 C204 & 2 C206
Displacement Devices. These would have to represent a very significant investment of
that time, very - if real.

Why again...?
Because IF you lived on worldline & had spent the last 20years fighting for survival,
recovering and replacing what they had lost - damn a 5110, would you not consider bringing
other stuff back across like new antibotics, tech you may not be able to recreate easily,
and of course, clean reproductive samples. Working this 3-dimensional window idea thru a
bit more - would they not have to arrive 1998(for consistency & splitting off a new Line),
then move uptime to see if it had a Y2K or N-war..?

The issue of how traveler would/not pay for items in any worldline can be raised but
gold is gold and small amounts are not going to pop up on IRS radar until they're long
gone.

JOHN-1 JOHN-2

2009MAR21 1.941 2009JUL29 1.941
2009MAR12 1.900 2001JAN31 2.004
2001JAN02 2.004 2000NOV27 2.004
2000OCT12 2.005 1999DEC28 2.490
1999DEC28 2.480 1998OCT29 2.500
1998OCT12 2.500 1998JUL29 2.500

And these readings would need to be posted in a place that would easily accessable to
any & all travelers & Lines. The Net sure is a great tool for this... and why are these
readings decreasing ?

JAT..
\T.
 
Re: Changing The Universe, One World Line At A Tim

Is it theoretically possible in a Multiverse system to create a range of divergences for
worldlines in a 10 year window that can used to map, and interpolate a zone of worldline
Divergences that have one thing in common - no N-War AND with continued advancements in
sciences, research AND bio-tech that did not occur in their timeline. Basically a "safe"
group of similiar worldlines...
Click to expand...


The trouble is....nobody really knows what on earth 'divergence' actually means. Simply saying 'divergence is 2.3% ' is meaningless. Divergence of what....from what ?

It's a bit like saying 'Fred is 2.3% divergent from Jim'. Armed with just that.....what does it mean ?
 
Re: Changing The Universe, One World Line At A Tim

Concur.
There is no way of determining what those values actually represent - maybe divergence % values maybe not, but we are postulating a 3-dimensional "construct" from a 2036 viewpoint. JT(s) would need to be able to determine & use some sort of accurate calibration. We can assume, for this exercise, it would all be referenced to their starting point in 2036.

[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%. TT_0 01/26/01 08:46 PM]

So his ZD of ~ 0.0002377% has an error factor and thats likely it. Anything below this % is just a better 'bulls eye'. It also makes "1-2% divergence" for our Line0 remarkably vague in retrospect. It would seem he did not want to quantify it. Curious...

\T.
 
Re: Changing The Universe, One World Line At A Tim

The divergence for that window is somewhere near .0002377%.
Click to expand...


What is diverging ? The world ? The solar system ? The galaxy ? The universe ?

Does Titor really have an instrument that can measure the position of every single one of 10^40 atoms in the entire universe ?

How does he know there isn't an atom in the Andromeda galaxy that's a millimeter different in place ? And how does he get that information in less than the two million years it takes information to reach us from there ?

Once you start questioning 'divergence'.....the whole thing just falls apart.
 
Re: Changing The Universe, One World Line At A Tim

Tesseract,

If you want to be taken seriously, then you have to think and apply facts scientifically. So far, I have seen large gaps in you doing so. And the whole "divergence measure" is my favorite Titor ruse:

So his ZD of ~ 0.0002377% has an error factor and thats likely it. Anything below this % is just a better 'bulls eye'. It also makes "1-2% divergence" for our Line0 remarkably vague in retrospect. It would seem he did not want to quantify it. Curious...
Click to expand...

So at one point, you were invoking Titor's argument that goes essentially like this: "I am just a historian and time machine driver. I ain't no physicist." If you are going to invoke that excuse then you cannot do so piecemeal. That means anything technical regarding his story must be looked upon as gibberish and most likely wrong. That goes for his nonsense of "dual top-spin micro black holes" that only bend laser light but no other light, for clearly it does not pass the veridical science of gravity that is demonstrable both today and in 2036.

But OTOH, if you are going to ignore Titor's "I ain't no physicist" line, and attempt to verify any technical explanation he said, then you need to apply science. The divergence measure is my favorite because he never established the basis for this percentage measurement. Never, and he was even asked. His fluff, non-answer was "it is an empirical measure based on gravity." OK, so if we apply science this answer does, indeed, tell us he is no scientist and is bluffing.

#1 - How can anything which is stated as a percentage NOT be based on an "empirical measure." Hell, the two words are redundant, because "empirical" literally means "based on observation or experience." Hence, of course it had to be measured in order to form a percentage.

#2 - Once he told us "based on gravity" but could not actually identify what that measure was, that is where Twilight's point about 10^40 atoms comes into play. If his "divergence" is based in any way on gravity, then it has to account for ALL gravity, everywhere. Because clearly any unaccounted-for gravity is going to cause a screwed-up divergence measure.

#3 - Once you accept his BS explanation about an "empirical measure based on gravity", you then have to positively conclude he is not a scientist and therefore you cannot believe anything he says about science, because clearly we have a "speed of light" and measurement problem with his divergence measure. In other words, there is no way (today or in 2036) that you are going to be able to measure every single atom in the universe to quantify its gravity and come up with a divergence measure. Period. If you are going to try and argue this as conclusive, then I would refer you to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle...

So are you going to apply science wholeheartedly, or are you going to continue to try and piecemeal it?

RMT
 
Re: Changing The Universe, One World Line At A Tim

TWL:
"What is diverging ? The world ? The solar system ? The galaxy ? The universe ?
Does Titor really have an instrument that can measure the position of every
single one of 10^40 atoms in the entire universe ? How does he know there isn't
an atom in the Andromeda galaxy that's a millimeter different in place ? And
how does he get that information in less than the two million years it takes
information to reach us from there ? Once you start questioning 'divergence'
.....the whole thing just falls apart."

We have no idea because we were not told anything more than you already know.
This does not validate or invalidate the issue of a divergence as one would
expect in the Multiple Parallel Worlds theory. Measuring it is another story.

RMT:
"If you want to be taken seriously, then you have to think and apply facts scientifically.
So far, I have seen large gaps in you doing so. And the whole "divergence measure" is
my favorite Titor ruse."

I must apologize, I didn't realize I was back at undergrad school.
By your 1st comment, its pretty obvious no justification exists that would sway you.
Perhaps we can just agree that in the Parallel Worlds theorem there HAS to have
divergence of timelines as you move outward from your own and if it can be measured,
it will be. I have no suggestions as to how you would calibrate divergencies for a
world with World Trade Towers in 2010 or without.

Otherthan that, we have very little facts but thats just the nature of the beast.
Titor was either real or not, and he gave his ZD of 0.0002377% for a near perfect
arrival back to his original Worldline. I postulated this being, in effect, the margin
for error +/-. Its an incredibly (word play intended) small number as a value not a
percentage. If you postulate he was real, what can we interpolate?

As far as my consideration for the Other John scenario, its not a method to be applied -
its a construct. I was not envoking anything - its a theory for the purpose of there
being 2 Johns to be roaming around in a 10 year worldline "box" swapping divergence
readings. I dont buy the Haber video saying that these other Johns need this info to
"get home" as their ZD is basically unobtainable as even JT stated such,and saying
that as long as he returned to a very close WL from his own, then he had accomplished
his mission. But since he also mentioned doing some quick trial runs before the 1975
jump, its obvious he would not have even left from his birth 2036 worldline.

"#2 - Once he told us "based on gravity" but could not actually identify what that measure
was, that is where Twilight's point about 10^40 atoms comes into play. If his "divergence"
is based in any way on gravity, then it has to account for ALL gravity, everywhere. Because
clearly any unaccounted-for gravity is going to cause a screwed-up divergence measure."

I dont think a few zillion atoms 13billion light years away has any (weak) gravitational
relevance in this discussion but what does is gravitational variations that do exist on
this planet and so you have made your point. We just dont know.

"#3 - Once you accept his BS explanation about an "empirical measure based on gravity", you
then have to positively conclude he is not a scientist and therefore you cannot believe
anything he says about science, because clearly we have a "speed of light" and measurement
problem with his divergence measure. In other words, there is no way (today or in 2036) that
you are going to be able to measure every single atom in the universe to quantify its gravity
and come up with a divergence measure. Period. If you are going to try and argue this as
conclusive, then I would refer you to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle..."

I know Heisenberg Uncertainty but may I suggest entropy instead.. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif ... joking.
Entropy rate could vary in each Universe. No dice there. But this Universe is unstable &
full of a zillion interactions and I think its much more suspicious just resolving vectors
for planet Earth's motion out to this galactic arm, just to land on it in a different time.
But to raise another issue - any TT is not going to turn into their own classical observer
but collapse all wave functions the moment they arrive. IMHO.

"So are you going to apply science wholeheartedly, or are you going to continue to try and piecemeal it?"

Probably piecemeal it... /ttiforum/images/graemlins/yum.gif

\T.
 
Re: Changing The Universe, One World Line At A Tim

JOHN-1 JOHN-2

2009MAR21 1.941 2009JUL29 1.941
2009MAR12 1.900 2001JAN31 2.004
2001JAN02 2.004 2000NOV27 2.004
2000OCT12 2.005 1999DEC28 2.490
1999DEC28 2.480 1998OCT29 2.500
1998OCT12 2.500 1998JUL29 2.500
Click to expand...


I find these 'readings' immediately suspicious......and for a very good and easily explainable reason.

The readings go to 3 decimal places......which means 999 possible permutations of end decimals. So howcome HALF the decimals end in 0, 4 them end in 00, and 4 of them start with 00 ? Howcome not a single 2, or 3, or 7......that's just absurd.

There are 18 zeroes in that list...out of 36 decimal digits......when by chance alone one would expect 4 ( 36 digits...the numbers 0 to 9 four times ). One would not expect that from a random 'reading' of divergence or whatever. One WOULD expect it from numbers that someone just made up and lazily bashed away at a keyboard !

Seriously...whoever made up that list was clearly not the brightest spark on the planet, to have contrived such a list so obviously made up.
 
Re: Changing The Universe, One World Line At A Tim

One WOULD expect it from numbers that someone just made up and lazily bashed away at a keyboard !

Seriously...whoever made up that list was clearly not the brightest spark on the planet, to have contrived such a list so obviously made up.
Click to expand...

Heh, good point, as always, Twi. I am sure you know that the % of the general population who even understands the difference between a uniform, normal, and gaussian distribution is probably well under 10%. This type of statistical analysis is something I use all the time to try and detect when students turn in wind tunnel experiments where they dry-labbed the numbers.

RMT
 
Re: Changing The Universe, One World Line At A Tim

This type of statistical analysis is something I use all the time to try and detect when students turn in wind tunnel experiments where they dry-labbed the numbers.
Click to expand...


In this instance it's just so obvious. I'd expect 'divergence' ( whatever it is ) measured to 3 decimal places to be somewhat random. Even if one planned a 'rough' divergence....I'd find it preposterous that anyone would just type in 2.500 % into the device on 3 ocassions when clearly if one is going for an exact date it would be most odd if that just 'happened' to get one there.

Also.....the total absence of 2, 3, 6, and 7 in the decimal placings seems very odd. The distribution of decimal numbers is way off what one would expect at random. So much so that you'd think that even whoever devised the list would have had the intelligence to have noticed ! I doubt Titor would have been dumb enough for that....so this is clearly the work of someone else.
 
Re: Changing The Universe, One World Line At A Tim

TWI/RMT,

I dont think you have enough of a sample for this sort of statistical analysis on just 12 datapoints
- you could toss 3 coins similtaneously 12 times and get a half coming up HHH 6 times.
Anomalous maybe, possible yes.

Theres another flag to raise here thats also curious - JT drops his ZD approximation of 0.0002377%
- 7 significant digits and implies they could calculate it to at least that level of accuracy - which is
light years better the 3 decimals on the JTF page. I said before that I doubt even 7 decimals has
enough "granularity". If real, JT was not telling us everything, if hoax we should expect the next
part of "operation"...

Either way we now have to look for some significant clue "inside" these divergencies + the 2001March12.
Was this JT1's exact departure date..?

Has anyone blown up/digitally enhanced the labels on the inside lid of the C204 yet ?
The detail is very curious. Since I have a CD-V717 I will mic the relative sizes when I have more
time.

\T.
 
Re: Changing The Universe, One World Line At A Tim

Perhaps its as simple as those are just the numbers he needs to put into the computer.
 
Re: Changing The Universe, One World Line At A Tim

As it is listed those numbers are for another John to understand and apply. They are not meant for anyone else to figure out especially since we do not know how the computer works. What other numbers are applied with it or even what a divergence is taken from.

If you are a spy and need info someone could code them for you so only you would know from a series of numbers what they mean.

We are seriously lacking info to understand what those numbers are meant for. THey could be just a bunch of BS but there would be seriously no way to know with the lack of info.
 
Re: Changing The Universe, One World Line At A Tim

Well....if I were forced to deduce a 'coded' message from it all, it would be 'July 2036'. One could ( though rather convoluted ) derive that from the missing numbers...though inserting the zero is a bit of a fudge.

Incidentally.....the list appears better in this form :-

John 2 1998 Jul 29 2.500
John 1 1998 Oct 12 2.500
John 2 1998 Oct 29 2.500
John 2 1999 Dec 28 2.490
John 1 1999 Dec 28 2.480
John 1 2000 Oct 12 2.005
John 2 2000 Nov 27 2.004
John 1 2001 Jan 02 2.004
John 2 2001 Jan 31 2.004
John 1 2009 Mar 12 1.900
Jonn 1 2009 Mar 21 1.941
John 2 2009 Jul 29 1.941

From which one can deduce that if the decrease continues at that rate ( 0.0508 or so a year ) one ends up at Zero around 2047
 
Re: Changing The Universe, One World Line At A Tim

One wonders...will one really know if cern creates a blackhole considering all of the negative comments they got about destroying the world?

Or will everything stay under wrap until later. ?
 
Re: Changing The Universe, One World Line At A Tim

Mini black holes are created in the upper atmosphere every day.....by cosmic rays, far more powerful than anything CERN ever made. If the Earth was going to be swallowed up, it would have happened a long time ago.
 
Re: Changing The Universe, One Worldline At A Time

TWL?
"Mini black holes are created in the upper atmosphere every day.....by cosmic rays, far more powerful than anything CERN ever made.
If the Earth was going to be swallowed up, it would have happened a long time ago..."

If you go down this path, then in the Multiverse arena it has already happened
many times on other world lines... and thus todate, we should consider ourselves
lucky to be in one where it hasn't happened yet.

CERN has not wound up the LHC to anywhere near its reputed max of 7x10^12eV (7TeV) yet.
Their 03/19 test was at 3.5TeV -
http://cdsweb.cern.ch/journal/CERNBulletin/2010/12/News%20Articles/1249542?ln=en

Since Cosmic ray particles are in the 100MeV to low GeV energy ranges I think the
LHC is capable of much higher energies by orders of magnitude, than simple Cosmic Rays.

\T.
Apologies - have been offline because of work issues, taxes and root canals.
 
Re: Changing The Universe, One Worldline At A Time

TWL:
"Well....if I were forced to deduce a 'coded' message from it all, it would be 'July 2036'. One could (though rather convoluted) derive that from the missing numbers...though inserting the zero is a bit of a fudge.
...
From which one can deduce that if the decrease continues at that rate ( 0.0508 or so a year ) one ends up at Zero around 2047"


Rather curious for the sequence to hit both JT's original departure ~date ballpark and ~10years later..

Heres another un-solvable question - how old would a real John Titor be now ?
(Think years & his time frame of ref, not ours...)

\T.
 
Re: Changing The Universe, One Worldline At A Time

Heres another un-solvable question - how old would a real John Titor be now ?
(Think years & his time frame of ref, not ours...)
Click to expand...

it's easily solved, yet pointless.
 
Back
Top