Hurricane Katrina ties it all together (Civil War)

[RainmanTime]

jmpet,

There are 4,300,000 Google responses to "Bush Sucks". 10% of them have salient points.

Google would hardly be classified as a search engine that only gathers salient, verifiable FACTs. Whether a point is salient or not depends on many things. Facts are less slippery.

So you're pro-Bush? You think he's doing a good job?

I have never generalized as being "pro anyone". That would be silly, because we all make mistakes just like we can all have our good moments. In some respects I think he is doing a decent job, in others not so much. At least he is not ignoring terrorist states like Clinton did. But I even believe Clinton had his saving graces.

You think as many or more countries like us today over 6 years ago?

Does it matter? This sounds like the kind of criteria you would use to select a 5th grade class president! Germany and Italy didn't like us much during WW II... so does that matter? I'm not one who believes our foreign policy should be primarily based (if at all) upon whether countries like us. It should be primarily based upon what is best for US (that's US as in United States), and then the world. So far, I think Bush has these priorities straight. And even if the other countries who supposedly hate us don't understand it, many of the things we are doing are protecting them against terrorists as much as they are protecting us.

I actually believe in the multiple worldline theory and can prove it mathematically

Really!? I'm interested. Care to share? I've got some math of my own (which I have shared some of in this forum). Does yours involve tensor calculus?

The closest thing to a silver bullet is the slight variances in the different Titor logs there are- one log it's 2% divergence and another it's 2.5%... stuff like that. Where was he patently wrong and how would that weigh against his 2.5% divergence?

Since you appear to have a working knowledge of science, I shouldn't have to remind you that you cannot apply the 2.5% "stuff" unless you know what metric the percentage is based upon. This is one of the biggest flaws in Titor's story: He never established what measure this 2.5% was based on. Therefore, since you can't answer the question "2.5% of what?" you cannot rely upon this for validating anything with respect to Titor's predictions. Plain and simple. In fact, the only place where I can see Boomer tried to tie this 2.5% to something quantifiable (and he still failed) resulting in me getting a really good chuckle out of it, because it was utterly clear where he "stole" this number from:

26 January 2001 13:32 -
Titor: 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 .002377%.

I laughed my a$$ off at that one! You know where he got ".002377" from? I do! This is a number that ANY aerospace engineer (such as myself) recognizes off the bat: This is the physical measure of standard air density, in the english units of measure known as slugs per cubic foot, on a standard day at sea level as defined by the ICAO standard atmosphere! Now what are the odds that his "divergence window" (which we still don't know the base units for) is EXACTLY equal to the numerical value of standard day, sea level air density in english units? It's not a coincidence. He just picked the number hoping no one else would recognize where he picked it from.

It was weird because it was so obviously not a terrorist-move yet we all went along with it anyway and half a million Iraqis and 2,000 Americans are dead as a result and know what? Oil went up, not down. This is why I asked what will it take for us to all rise up and get rid of Bush.

You are missing other points/results of the situation in Iraq. One relates to a time-honored tradition of warfare: Fight them on THEIR land, before they can get to OUR land. It is plainly easier for terrorists to get into Iraq and confront our military there, than it is for them to get into the US and kill innocent people. So far, the terrorist elements are going for the easy targets, and the law-abiding Iraqi people are certainly going to need our help to defeat them and build a lawful society. I'm not happy that US troops and innocent Iraqis have been killed... but we must not forget who is doing the killing with suicide bombs, etc.

a lot of weird stuff has happened when he said it would

Please provide me a list... especially the part of "when he said it would" happen. If anything Titor avoided giving quaintifiable dates to most of his "predictions". Do enlighten me, as I've been here since Titor was here.

especially since he wouldn't get into natural disasters which we now have lots of.

Huh? Now that's just silly. Are you telling me that because he DIDN'T want to predict natural disasters, that this somehow validates him? /ttiforum/images/graemlins/confused.gif The tone of this sentence of yours seems to be saying exactly that! He didn't predict natural disasters, and now we have them, so Titor was right! HUH? You CAN'T be serious!

Considering the amount of information he provided over a long period of time and a lot of it was direct answers to tough questions and they all pointed to only a few truths, you gotta give the guy some credit.

He deserves credit as a decent storyteller... nothing more. And his science is not as airtight as you seem to think.

Perhaps you are familiar with the story of the Red Sea and the Egyptians?

Red Sea = Tsunami.

That would be your interpretation of his "hint", not any sort of fact about something he was predicting. You could stretch this intepretation in many different directions to fit many types of events. This is precisely the "tactic" Boomer used, and you seem to fall for it hook, line, and sinker!

On that note, perhaps its more interesting to consider what I won't be doing to try and stop that war.

Same tactic of vagueness he used above with the Red Sea example. It really piqued your interest, didn't it? That's because it was intended to do that. But when you look at it, it has no verifiable facts about anything in it. If he had solidly predicted something that he was not going to do anything to stop, then you might have something interesting.

I was also one of those people laughing at the whiny Democrats in 2004 when we proved Bush deserves to be in office.

"We" actually proved it? I don't think so. My personal opinion was/is that he was a better choice than Kerry. But there are plenty of other people I would have voted for over Bush, if I was given the chance. IMHO, Bush was the lesser of two "evils".

So this is coming from a truly objective perspective.

I find it hard to believe that anyone can be "truly objective". In fact, I don't think anyone who can form an opinion can be "truly" objective... too many nuances that could taint someone's objectivity.

And BTW, "espouse"? Are we having an intelligent discussion or dueling with ten dollar words?

Why pick on me for having a deep vocabulary? The word fit its use:

Defintion: Espouse - "To give one's loyalty or support to (a cause, for example); adopt."

I could just as easily pick on you for your overuse of the shallow and non-specific word "stuff". The vocabulary a person uses has often been said to be a window into that person's mindset. What do our vocabularies say about the two of us?

RMT

 

[creedo299]

Notes, RMT and Cree:

Comparative clog dancing in 1776 era garb is possible.

RMT might own a limo that is fifteen feet high, thirty-six feet long, similar to the giant auto car, the SS Mammoth-tub.

In Crees apartment in L.A. you enter the door, but go back to what seems like 1936.In this apartment, is a door with thousands of babies on the other side, RMT sees this, says something, however Cree sys don't worry about it, took care of them yesterday.

 

[jmpet]

>>Heh. No, again you are misunderstanding the point: YOU do not get to choose MY future. So here is how my timeline would unravel given the scenario you present:
1) You attack with a knife.
2) I squeeze off one, maybe two rounds of my S&W 357 before you can even scratch me.
3) I close my eyes and imagine there might be someone in my timeline who might actually miss you.<<

I had this exact same conversation just two days ago with a good friend. I call it "exostentialism meets reality". While we can want things to be a certain way, at a certain point we must fall back and admit we're all living in a shared reality. The knife scenario is meant to show what would happen if my reality met your reality- invariably tangable reality wins out. Do you agree?

 

[jmpet]

I normally don't engage in "tit for tat" because it usually leads two people down a road with no end while seperating us from everyone else while we argue semantic points but I feel there still is a point to be made. As such...

-----------------------
>There are 4,300,000 Google responses to "Bush Sucks". 10% of them have salient points.
>>Google would hardly be classified as a search engine that only gathers salient, verifiable FACTs. Whether a point is salient or not depends on many things. Facts are less slippery.<<

So you're saying that in your reality those four million plus websites don't count, right? And the polls that say 76% of all Americans don't approve of Bush only mean that you're in the 24% that's right, right? So the majority of people are wrong because you know you're right, right?
-----------------------

-----------------------
>So you're pro-Bush? You think he's doing a good job?
>>I have never generalized as being "pro anyone". That would be silly, because we all make mistakes just like we can all have our good moments. In some respects I think he is doing a decent job, in others not so much. At least he is not ignoring terrorist states like Clinton did. But I even believe Clinton had his saving graces.

I agree. However, when you take into account the FACT that Bush and his buddies have been feeding "anonymous source" news to the news just so it can become news, then it becomes actionable, I'd say Bush and his buddies aren't playing fairly. Do you agree? Flamegate, anyone?
------------------------

------------------------
>You think as many or more countries like us today over 6 years ago?
>>Does it matter? This sounds like the kind of criteria you would use to select a 5th grade class president!<<

Considering 10-20 countries own nuclear weapons and 5-15 of them hate us now more than ever I'd say yeah, it does matter what the world thinks about us.
------------------------

------------------------
>>Germany and Italy didn't like us much during WW II... so does that matter?<<

It did to the sixty million people that died as a result.
------------------------

------------------------
>>I'm not one who believes our foreign policy should be primarily based (if at all) upon whether countries like us. It should be primarily based upon what is best for US (that's US as in United States), and then the world.<<

Hmmm... I would love to believe you but ethically I can't. Simply put, we've been pissing on the world for too long. Especially when you consider our success as a country is based on the successes of others, we have been engaging in acts against other countries for the benefit of Americans for too long and have gone too far. That is, unless you think America outsourcing jobs too good for Americans is a good thing. Hey- I love 99 cent stores too, but I also realize those items cost 99 cents because somewhere in China there's someone making 8 cents an hour making this stuff and at some point we must be held accountable for it. This is the fundamental basis of terrorism; this is "why they hate us": because we only care about ourselves and these terrorists, who are normally ethical people, see the US taking over the world so we can have cheaper oil they're not happy and I really don't blame them for being pissed off. This is the same as the knife example- you can ignore reality as much as you want, but when it directly affects you- when they're at your doorstep as a result of these actions- it becomes hard to wish it all away.

Did you know that 37 of the 40 poorest countries in the world export chicken and grain to the US? Did you know that American Big Business have been engaging in foreign meddling: going to these poor countries and buying their best lands so they can grow grain and chicken for us so we can have 99 cent chicken nuggets? Did you know the people in those countries are starving to death while their own land is being used to grow more food for America?

Do you realize that if China instituted a minimum wage that it would directly spell the end of the 99 cent store? Do you realize that if Saudi Arabia wanted to, they could simply stop drilling for oil? And who would that hurt more- them or us? Do you realize if Mexicans stopped picking Strawberries they'd be $5.00 a pint? Do you realize the WHO is spending millions to combat avian flu mostly because America doesn't want it coming here? Do you realize countries like North Korea who need more than want nuclear power are running into a brick wall with the US? Do you realize the world has a non-proliferation agreement with each other that the US is not a part of? Did you know there is a worldwide agreement to stop the overfishing of our oceans that is signed by virtually every country except the US? Do you realize our going to war went against the UN? At what point will concessions against the world because "Americans want it all" become a reality for you?
---------------------

---------------------
>>So far, I think Bush has these priorities straight. And even if the other countries who supposedly hate us don't understand it, many of the things we are doing are protecting them against terrorists as much as they are protecting us.<<

I agree in principle, but the reality of it is that our GNP is the direct result of the import and export of goods and services. We're all living on one planet.
----------------------

----------------------
>I actually believe in the multiple worldline theory and can prove it mathematically

>>Really!? I'm interested. Care to share? I've got some math of my own (which I have shared some of in this forum). Does yours involve tensor calculus?

I have no idea what "tensor calculus" is. Does that somehow mean you know something I don't? I don't think so. My understanding is based on logic. Why didn't Einstein come up with his "Theory of Everything"? Because you can't mathematically prove God.

Whatever "tensor calculus" you may have, assuming it works, is based on the logical deduction that it works; that is, that it can be "dumbed-down" and easily explainable. Like Star Trek, where they add in some "future scientific principle" as a solution but explain it in layman's terms.

"If we divert the flow of Ninyan particles and charge their spin to the negative, it may create a statis warp shell that allows tackyon particles to flow at 1.21 gigowatts."

"What?!!"

"If we stepped on the gas, the ship will go."

"Oh."

So if you can explain your math to me "in speaking words" I would really love to see it. But please make it understandable, don't throw a bunch of mumbo-jumbo at me then say "well you would understand if you knew science better" because that is a cop out.

In exchange, I will share some of my logic with you which reads and is as understandable as my dialogue because behind math is logic. My explanation of the weird will be no more than one short paragraph of easily understandable words, can you provide the same and if so, please do.
-------------------------

-------------------------
>The closest thing to a silver bullet is the slight variances in the different Titor logs there are- one log it's 2% divergence and another it's 2.5%... stuff like that. Where was he patently wrong and how would that weigh against his 2.5% divergence?

>>Since you appear to have a working knowledge of science, I shouldn't have to remind you that you cannot apply the 2.5% "stuff" unless you know what metric the percentage is based upon.

Assuming "meters" are part of the universe I would agree. But since "meters" is an arbitrary number made up by us and used so we can spatially think, I don't rely on "metrical calculations" for answers, if for no other reason than because it wouldn't apply to any of the billions of other planets full of intelligent life that there is out there. In short, since you can covert "meters" to a percent, meters are not the magic bullet.
----------------------------

----------------------------
>This is one of the biggest flaws in Titor's story: He never established what measure this 2.5% was based on. Therefore, since you can't answer the question "2.5% of what?" you cannot rely upon this for validating anything with respect to Titor's predictions. Plain and simple.<

Titor saying "2.5% divergence" really means he's saying "97.5% accurate with our universe", and you can convert 97.5% into any fraction of any decimel of any incremental measurement; fractions work because they're relative to themselves.
----------------------------

----------------------------
>>In fact, the only place where I can see Boomer tried to tie this 2.5% to something quantifiable (and he still failed) resulting in me getting a really good chuckle out of it, because it was utterly clear where he "stole" this number from:

26 January 2001 13:32 -
Titor: 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 .002377%.

I laughed my a$$ off at that one! You know where he got ".002377" from? I do! This is a number that ANY aerospace engineer (such as myself) recognizes off the bat: This is the physical measure of standard air density, in the english units of measure known as slugs per cubic foot, on a standard day at sea level as defined by the ICAO standard atmosphere! Now what are the odds that his "divergence window" (which we still don't know the base units for) is EXACTLY equal to the numerical value of standard day, sea level air density in english units? It's not a coincidence. He just picked the number hoping no one else would recognize where he picked it from.<<

I am not disagreeing with you, that is a good point. But there is something special about the numbers 002377 too, you know. I like where Titor says words to the effect of "I entered this universe and quantified it" or "My entering this timeline altered it" and please don't ask for the quote- I can't go through all that posting again and I aint' suggesting that Titor was God because he was a man, I'm suggesting reality is not really that real, that is why we're all here in this forum in the first place.

And why do you keep calling him Boomer? Unless you know something no one else knows, his nom de plume was John Titor.
-----------------------------------

-----------------------------------
>It was weird because it was so obviously not a terrorist-move yet we all went along with it anyway and half a million Iraqis and 2,000 Americans are dead as a result and know what? Oil went up, not down. This is why I asked what will it take for us to all rise up and get rid of Bush.

>>You are missing other points/results of the situation in Iraq. One relates to a time-honored tradition of warfare: Fight them on THEIR land, before they can get to OUR land. It is plainly easier for terrorists to get into Iraq and confront our military there, than it is for them to get into the US and kill innocent people.

So all of Iraq are terrorists then?
-----------------------------------

-----------------------------------
>So far, the terrorist elements are going for the easy targets, and the law-abiding Iraqi people are certainly going to need our help to defeat them and build a lawful society. I'm not happy that US troops and innocent Iraqis have been killed... but we must not forget who is doing the killing with suicide bombs, etc.

Who is killing more- them or us? Who is dying more- us or them? Who started it?
-----------------------------------

-----------------------------------
>a lot of weird stuff has happened when he said it would
>>Please provide me a list... especially the part of "when he said it would" happen. If anything Titor avoided giving quaintifiable dates to most of his "predictions". Do enlighten me, as I've been here since Titor was here.

No I will not. If I have to back up every single word I say with detailed lists and cross refererence algorythyms over time to deduce tangable results all in an attempt to convince one person the sky is really blue then it's logically easier for me to ignore and bebunk you and move on to "everyone else but you". You already tried throwing it in my face with your "show me where Titor said it was preventable but didn't stop it" line and I spent a good half hour finding the one line I knew was there, now I have to spend the next several weeks preparing a report just so you can tear that apart as well it's simply not worth it. You are clearly using too much math to prove your points which is really funny, because the more math you use, the larger the "chaos factor" becomes (i.e. Heisenberg).

>especially since he wouldn't get into natural disasters which we now have lots of.
>>Huh? Now that's just silly. Are you telling me that because he DIDN'T want to predict natural disasters, that this somehow validates him? The tone of this sentence of yours seems to be saying exactly that! He didn't predict natural disasters, and now we have them, so Titor was right! HUH? You CAN'T be serious!

See above.
----------------------------------

----------------------------------
>Considering the amount of information he provided over a long period of time and a lot of it was direct answers to tough questions and they all pointed to only a few truths, you gotta give the guy some credit.
>>He deserves credit as a decent storyteller... nothing more. And his science is not as airtight as you seem to think.

I agree with you. But at the same time, science itself is not airtight either, is it?
----------------------------------

----------------------------------
>Perhaps you are familiar with the story of the Red Sea and the Egyptians? Red Sea = Tsunami.
>>That would be your interpretation of his "hint", not any sort of fact about something he was predicting. You could stretch this intepretation in many different directions to fit many types of events. This is precisely the "tactic" Boomer used, and you seem to fall for it hook, line, and sinker!

I really think you need to get out more. If the Red Sea wasn't a Tsunami, then what was it? And why would Titor use a Red Sea "tsunami" reference when we haven't seen one in a good 40 years and even then its effects were isolated... why would he pick such an obscure line as that unless he wanted to be believed and not blamed for the 90,000 dead as a result of a natural disaster that is unavoidable and from his perspective, old history.
----------------------------------

----------------------------------
>On that note, perhaps its more interesting to consider what I won't be doing to try and stop that war.
>>Same tactic of vagueness he used above with the Red Sea example. It really piqued your interest, didn't it? That's because it was intended to do that. But when you look at it, it has no verifiable facts about anything in it. If he had solidly predicted something that he was not going to do anything to stop, then you might have something interesting.

Okay. What scientific verifiable facts about anything can you give me then? Can you tell me what a hydrogen atom looks like with absolute certainty?
---------------------------------

---------------------------------
>My personal opinion was/is that he was a better choice than Kerry. But there are plenty of other people I would have voted for over Bush, if I was given the chance. IMHO, Bush was the lesser of two "evils".

I agree. Yet he still is evil and apparently is the grandson of Reagan as many of Reagan's tactics are back in full swing.
--------------------------------

--------------------------------
>>I find it hard to believe that anyone can be "truly objective". In fact, I don't think anyone who can form an opinion can be "truly" objective... too many nuances that could taint someone's objectivity.

This is not a political issue for me so I don't want to taint it by making it one. Me, as a registered Republican who knew voting for Bush was the right thing a year ago realize I was wrong.
-------------------------------

-------------------------------
>And BTW, "espouse"? Are we having an intelligent discussion or dueling with ten dollar words?
>>Why pick on me for having a deep vocabulary? The word fit its use: Defintion: Espouse - "To give one's loyalty or support to (a cause, for example); adopt."

I bring this up because if you and me were having this discussion over beer at a bar I hardly think the word "espouse" would come up.
-------------------------------

-------------------------------
>I could just as easily pick on you for your overuse of the shallow and non-specific word "stuff". The vocabulary a person uses has often been said to be a window into that person's mindset. What do our vocabularies say about the two of us?

For me, it says I know the big words but I don't preach from up high; I realize that just because I know all the ten dollar words doesn't mean everyone else does, so using these words takes a logical conversation and turns it into, well, dueling with ten dollar words. If you can't explain a complicated principle in easy-to-understand words then we might we well close up every school on the planet.
-------------------------------

Now can I see your math?

 

[RainmanTime]

The knife scenario is meant to show what would happen if my reality met your reality- invariably tangable reality wins out. Do you agree?

Given the context within which this scenario was offered, I think it would be difficult for anyone to agree. Let's not stray too far from the topic here, and to remind ourselves: the topic is the predictability of what our alleged "shared reality" would be, viz-a-viz the John Titor story.

You are aware, I hope, of the documented cases where some sort of tangible event occurred and the witnesses to said event could not agree as to what the reality of the event consisted of. In fact, I believe such studies have even been performed that have confirmed that a single eyewitness to a crime is less reliable than other forms of evidence (i.e. forensic) where singular perception and interpretation are not required. So it all boils down to WHO and HOW MANY are doing the measurements on this "tangible reality" when it comes to pass. But this is an age-old problem which we are still arguing about today: How to separate an objective form of "reality" (if one even exists) from human perception. There are some well-respected physicists who hold to their theories that "reality" cannot exist without conscisousness, and therefore "shared reality" requires two instantiations of independent consciousness... and right there you are set up for problems.

RMT

 

[jmpet]

>>Given the context within which this scenario was offered, I think it would be difficult for anyone to agree. Let's not stray too far from the topic here, and to remind ourselves: the topic is the predictability of what our alleged "shared reality" would be, viz-a-viz the John Titor story.<<

I posit that in my universe there really was a time traveller named John Titor. Whether or not there really was is the reason we're debating. You're saying Titor isn't part of your universe and need more than adequate proof to convince you otherwise. I am willing to concede I may be wrong because I have no proof, you're saying it's not worth an objective look because you already came to the conclusion he was a fraud. So when things Titor alluded to five years ago kinda happen kinda the same way he kinda said they kinda would, I kinda think it may be more evidence that he was kinda for real; it makes me look closer to see if there are other gems I may have missed. You see them differently- because they didn't happen exactly like he said they would, that's proof it's not true at all. If I had to give a solid yes or no answer to Titor I'd say no because there is no proof. But I am not at a that point yet, you are.

If I said I could predict the winner in horse races but actually didn't and only predicted the second or third place winners there is still knowledge to glean from those predictions.

>You are aware, I hope, of the documented cases where some sort of tangible event occurred and the witnesses to said event could not agree as to what the reality of the event consisted of. In fact, I believe such studies have even been performed that have confirmed that a single eyewitness to a crime is less reliable than other forms of evidence (i.e. forensic) where singular perception and interpretation are not required.<

Yes. Simplistcally put, there are two realities- the universe of reality that is our individual brains and the tangable reality we all share. Proof of a tangable reality is in WORDS: everyone agreeing that things are specific things; a cat is a cat and not an ice cream sundae. (To quote myself) a pencil can make a great backscratcher, but it's still a pencil. This is why if I attacked you with a knife, you can't imagine it's a fish instead because this is where we share tangable reality.

 

[RainmanTime]

I can see that you argue by coming to conclusions about what someone is NOT saying, rather than by what they ARE saying (and more proof is given by your response to what Titor did NOT say about natural disasters). As such...

So you're saying that in your reality those four million plus websites don't count, right? And the polls that say 76% of all Americans don't approve of Bush only mean that you're in the 24% that's right, right? So the majority of people are wrong because you know you're right, right?

No, I am not saying any of these. Just like I would not say that I would believe anything I read on any given internet website. Would you have an infallible means to screen-out potential Al Qaeda websites from those above? Because certainly they do not like what Bush is doing in his job, and for some "odd" reason I think that would be GOOD!

when you take into account the FACT that Bush and his buddies have been feeding "anonymous source" news to the news just so it can become news, then it becomes actionable, I'd say Bush and his buddies aren't playing fairly. Do you agree? Flamegate, anyone?

Fair? So how would you hold up this exact same standard to the "independent media" (i.e. some guy publishing what he wants to publish as news, in order to get a specific reaction he has in mind)? If you think that intelligence, counter-intelligence, and counter-counter-intelligence does not apply to what goes on in a society, much less its government, then I would suggest you have a naieve view that does not realize there are two edges to every sword. Does that make what Bush & Co do "right"? No. But you must certainly agree that there are plenty of other people out there doing the same thing, and some in an effort to bring down our US form of government. Right?

Considering 10-20 countries own nuclear weapons and 5-15 of them hate us now more than ever I'd say yeah, it does matter what the world thinks about us.

Well, then I feel sorry for you in that case. For if you base your morality on what other people think of you, then it is not your morality. It is some sort of mangled attempt at trying to satisfy their morality just so they won't kill you with nuclear weapons. I call that being held hostage to someone else's view of what is right.

At what point will concessions against the world because "Americans want it all" become a reality for you?

Don't get me wrong... I am one American who would agree that too many Americans live in an excessive manner. I don't think this is the kind of issue that government could (nor should they) try to address. And in point of fact, free market capitalism holds this as its highest precept. If lots of people want to live in excess, and have the financial means to do so, the market forces should be left to decide who does and who doesn't. So I would not measure whether or not we are doing the right thing based solely on our "excesses"... for you could well run into cases where the perception of American "excesses" lead to wonderful things that the world now uses without paying a dime for (i.e. the intenet and GPS are two that immediately come to mind).

Rather, I would point to one fact that may be more suitable: If we are such a moral wasteland, holding other countries hostage "against their will", why is it that people continue to want to come live, work, and make a life for themselves here in the Land Of The Free? Even people who live in MUCH better conditions than we do (you mentioned the Saudis) still want to come here. Don't you have to ask yourself why that is? Furthermore, I think you are kidding yourself when you say:

and these terrorists, who are normally ethical people... (snip) and... see the US taking over the world so we can have cheaper oil

Clearly they are not ethical if they wish to kill women and children to make their point, and clearly (as you pointed out) oil has NOT gotten cheaper!

I have no idea what "tensor calculus" is.

It is a well-established (and verified) form of math, which includes most treatment's of Einstein's GTR, that extends the concept of a vector to higher levels of dimensionality. If you do not understand tensor calculus (as a minimum vector calculus) then it would do me (or you) no good to share my maths with you. You would simply call it "mumbo jumbo" not because it is "mumbo jumbo" but because you would not understand its significance and relevance.

Does that somehow mean you know something I don't? I don't think so.

You may not think so, but if I can solve engineering problems within a formulation of mathematics that you do not understand, they your thought may be incomplete. Just as I am quite certain there are things you know about that I do not.

Whatever "tensor calculus" you may have, assuming it works, is based on the logical deduction that it works; that is, that it can be "dumbed-down" and easily explainable.

Wrong. It works because it has been verified by independent measurements that it conforms with reality. It's pretty tough to "dumb down" calculus, much less vectors, without losing the beauty of WHY they "work". If you don't "get" calculus and vectors, you don't have a hope of understanding tensor calculus... mostly because it deals with dimensionality that is not, and cannot be made "intuitive".

Like Star Trek, where they add in some "future scientific principle" as a solution but explain it in layman's terms

I've got some harsh news for you pal: Star Trek is NOT real, and nor was there any physicist or mathematician checking their work to make sure it was "realistic". Poor example for your argument, that is!

But please make it understandable, don't throw a bunch of mumbo-jumbo at me then say "well you would understand if you knew science better" because that is a cop out.

No, it really is not a cop-out, and only someone who has studied undergraduate science/engineering math would know it is not a cop-out. There are vector calculus functions (for example, look up the Kronecker Delta function or Dirac Delta function on google) that are by no means intuitive, and yet they describe quite faithfully some of the mechanics of how our universe works.

I'll continue later this evening.
RMT

 

[jmpet]

>No, I am not saying any of these. Just like I would not say that I would believe anything I read on any given internet website. Would you have an infallible means to screen-out potential Al Qaeda websites from those above? Because certainly they do not like what Bush is doing in his job, and for some "odd" reason I think that would be GOOD!<

What then would you consider a reliable source for your news; on what news of current events do you base your opinions on?

>Fair? So how would you hold up this exact same standard to the "independent media" (i.e. some guy publishing what he wants to publish as news, in order to get a specific reaction he has in mind)? <

There are two HUUUUGE differences- first, "they are" making up its own news by giving information, then holding a press conference to address these issues that they just brought up. Second, the New York Times is "the paper of record", so if you can manipulate that, you literally can manipulate reality. Once again, where do you get your news? Would O'Connor's untimely timely death convince you?

>Well, then I feel sorry for you in that case. For if you base your morality on what other people think of you, then it is not your morality. It is some sort of mangled attempt at trying to satisfy their morality just so they won't kill you with nuclear weapons. I call that being held hostage to someone else's view of what is right.<

No, I base morality on its definition, unless you have another one:

MORALITY:
1 a : a moral discourse, statement, or lesson
b : a literary or other imaginative work teaching a moral lesson
2 a : a doctrine or system of moral conduct
b plural : particular moral principles or rules of conduct
3 : conformity to ideals of right human conduct

MORAL:
1 a : of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior
b : expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior
c : conforming to a standard of right behavior
d : sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical judgment
e : capable of right and wrong action


>If we are such a moral wasteland, holding other countries hostage "against their will", why is it that people continue to want to come live, work, and make a life for themselves here in the Land Of The Free?<

Because they cannot beat the system, closest they came to beating it is blowing it up.

>Even people who live in MUCH better conditions than we do (you mentioned the Saudis) still want to come here.<

Which Saudis want to come here?

>Clearly they are not ethical if they wish to kill women and children to make their point, and clearly (as you pointed out) oil has NOT gotten cheaper!<

Well if you agree with my conclusion, then why are you disagreeing with me?

>It is a well-established (and verified) form of math, which includes most treatment's of Einstein's GTR, that extends the concept of a vector to higher levels of dimensionality.<

Analyzing random numbers is also an exact science.

>If you do not understand tensor calculus (as a minimum vector calculus) then it would do me (or you) no good to share my maths with you. You would simply call it "mumbo jumbo" not because it is "mumbo jumbo" but because you would not understand its significance and relevance.<

So either A) I am too dumb to understand your smarties or B) It's so complicated that it would be impossible for you to break it down into normal speaking words, right?

How did you learn it then?

>You may not think so, but if I can solve engineering problems within a formulation of mathematics that you do not understand, they your thought may be incomplete. Just as I am quite certain there are things you know about that I do not.<

According to physics, you can also tie a daisy to the tail of an elephant and suspend it from a cliff. -Costner, JFK

>[Tensor calculus] works because it has been verified by independent measurements that it conforms with reality. It's pretty tough to "dumb down" calculus, much less vectors, without losing the beauty of WHY they "work". If you don't "get" calculus and vectors, you don't have a hope of understanding tensor calculus... mostly because it deals with dimensionality that is not, and cannot be made "intuitive".<

So there's no way to translate any conclusions from tensor calculus in any coherent way for any layman to understand it then, right? Why don't you try anyway. I'll take my smart pills

>Like Star Trek, where they add in some "future scientific principle" as a solution but explain it in layman's terms
>>I've got some harsh news for you pal: Star Trek is NOT real, and nor was there any physicist or mathematician checking their work to make sure it was "realistic". Poor example for your argument, that is!

If you cannot understand the concept that "complicated things are based on simple truths" then I believe we're done here.

>I'll continue later this evening.<

I can't wait! I have my logical math ready to go too! I can do it in less than 100 words that a nine year old would understand.

 

[RainmanTime]

I see you've been busy. If your only goal is to overwhelm me (sometimes with things I could care less about), you can save your energy. Let's see... where did I leave off? Oh yes...

Assuming "meters" are part of the universe I would agree. But since "meters" is an arbitrary number made up by us and used so we can spatially think, I don't rely on "metrical calculations" for answers, if for no other reason than because it wouldn't apply to any of the billions of other planets full of intelligent life that there is out there. In short, since you can covert "meters" to a percent, meters are not the magic bullet.

I did not say "meters" I said "metric". And it appears you might not be familiar with the definition of "metric" I am talking about:
A standard of measurement. IOW, I was referring to the standard of measurement which any percentage is based upon. In still other words, If I were to say "there is a 5.67% difference between our points of view", how would you know what that meant (in real, physical terms) until you know what measurement I based that on?

Titor saying "2.5% divergence" really means he's saying "97.5% accurate with our universe", and you can convert 97.5% into any fraction of any decimel of any incremental measurement; fractions work because they're relative to themselves.

You're playing with terms and not identifying a metric. When you say "accurate", I ask "with respect to WHAT MEASURE?" I could assume Titor meant something, but that would be a weak shot in the dark. I will state it again: Any measure of percentage is useless without a definition of what "100%" means with respect to a physical measure.

But there is something special about the numbers 002377 too, you know.

Do tell.

And why do you keep calling him Boomer? Unless you know something no one else knows, his nom de plume was John Titor.

Someone else answered this, but I guess you didn't believe it. Boomer is the name that Darby gave to the person writing as if they were John Titor. He did so because of linguistic analysis that revealed John Titor spoke like all of us baby Boomers do. He had no linguistic anomalies that you would expect from a person who is 36 years removed from us.

So all of Iraq are terrorists then?

Again, I did not say that, nor did I even imply it. Why not concentrate on what I am typing/saying and not so much on trying to put words in my mouth?

No I will not. If I have to back up every single word I say with detailed lists

It has nothing to do with backing up what you said, it is displaying that you know what Titor said. So far, from my view, you are running awfully loose with what you THINK Titor said. That is not a terribly good way to be an objective analyst, now is it?

I agree with you. But at the same time, science itself is not airtight either, is it?

Glad you agree. But science *is* airtight at least with respect to the fact that it matches empirical measurements. When science does not agree with such verification, then science changes. Another thing science does is to posit theories that CAN be tested, and also can be falsified. We've had tons of discussions on how none of Boomer's "predictions" can be falsified, except for a handful (Civil War in 2004, no official olympics after 2004). And even when those are falsified, the 2.5% divergence nonsense prevents true falsification. That ain't science. (BTW, 97.5% accuracy is pretty poor from any standard of measurement. I'm sure you've heard the explanations of what would be happening if only 99% of all surgeries were successful, or if 99% of all airplane landings were successful...)

I really think you need to get out more. If the Red Sea wasn't a Tsunami, then what was it?

It was a story that, to the best of my knowledge (even if I don't "get out more") has never been verified as to its veracity, much less what it was if it was true. There are theories that claim the Jews simply crossed during low tide at the Sea of Reeds, and that the Egyptians were simply caught in the middle as the tide began to rise again. I'm not saying that is true either, but you can't tell me you know for a fact that the STORY behind the parting of the Red Sea was real, and that it was a tsunami! First establish it was a factual event...THEN we can worry about what may have caused it.

And why would Titor use a Red Sea "tsunami" reference when we haven't seen one in a good 40 years and even then its effects were isolated... why would he pick such an obscure line as that unless he wanted to be believed and not blamed for the 90,000 dead as a result of a natural disaster that is unavoidable and from his perspective, old history.

Simple. And you even answered your own question: To be OBSCURE, and the reason for being obscure is so that you make actual events "fit" the obscure model he provided for you. The "100,000 dead" quote from his is just as obscure, and you should see how many events people were "sure" it described.

What scientific verifiable facts about anything can you give me then? Can you tell me what a hydrogen atom looks like with absolute certainty?

Plenty... how about from my domain of experience? It is a scientifically verifiable fact that aerodynamic forces on a body vary with the square of the velocity of the body through its fluid. That's part of Bernoulli's Principle which has been experimentally verified over and over...and this fact has been what aviation is based upon. As to what hydrogen looks like, I assume you know we live in a RELATIVE universe, so the only "absolute certainty" is that there is no such thing as "absolute certainty". However, without knowing exactly how a hydrogen atom looks, we certainly do know a lot about it via its chemical interactions... again, empirically verified by measurement.

Yet he still is evil and apparently is the grandson of Reagan as many of Reagan's tactics are back in full swing.

That's odd, because I thought you told me you were a registered Republican? Instead, you seem to paint Reagan as "evil" when not only will Republicans, but quite a few Democrats, would agree that Reagan was one of our greatest presidents, and his policies were directly involved in bringing down the USSR. I'm beginning to think you were fibbing to me about being a Republican, because a conservative approach to foreign policy is well-known and well-established. Given your comments, I have a hard time believing you were ever able to comprehend, much less espouse (yes, I used that word again) conservative policies.

Me, as a registered Republican who knew voting for Bush was the right thing a year ago realize I was wrong.

How can you be so sure it was wrong? You see, the problem here is that you cannot possibly know where we would be (better or worse?) had Kerry been elected. That is plain and simple fact. You can SURMISE we might be better, but neither you, nor I, nor any Democrat who thinks they know everything could ever know that. You could take a few hints from Boomer (I mean Titor) when it comes to judging people as "good" or "bad".

I bring this up because if you and me were having this discussion over beer at a bar I hardly think the word "espouse" would come up.

Perfect... because we are NOT having this discussion over beer. In fact, you yourself said we are having an "intellectual" discussion. To me that means picking the best, most descriptive word that is in my vocabulary. If we were having beers, I don't know about you, but I would NOT be having a discussion like this! :D When I drink beer, I gawk at women, tell goofy stories, tell dirty jokes, watch football, shoot pool.... FAR from being "intellectual discussions." You say I should get out more... I think maybe you should re-order your priorities! /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

I realize that just because I know all the ten dollar words doesn't mean everyone else does, so using these words takes a logical conversation and turns it into, well, dueling with ten dollar words.

Again, you are picking on me because I choose my words carefully. You appear to me smart enough that you did know what the word meant. If you didn't, I KNOW you are smart enough to type in "www.dictionary.com" and look it up. If you think my use of vocabulary is meant to demean you or insult you in any way, well, that is your problem and I can't do anything about it. But I am NOT going to lower my own standards for communication just because you think it is high and mighty. Part of the reason I am successful in what I do is for the very fact that my vocabulary is better than the average Joe. I don't intend to give that up.

Now can I see your math?

Let me explain how this will likely transpire: I can certainly start out with simple concepts (simple differentials related to simple concepts). But it won't take long before I will have to resort to what some people think are "complex mathematics" in order to exhibit why my maths are correct (and accepted by the scientific community). Now... if you DO continue to understand and agree with my math once we get beyond vector calculus, and start moving into eigenvectors and eigenvalues, there will also come a point where I am not willing to share the remainder of my work... for the simple fact that I am still working on it and I am seeking to publish it formally. But honestly, if you don't have a grasp on vector calculus, I don't think we would ever get that far.

But perhaps I will try to explain the simple beginnings of my approach. In fact, you can find them on this forum, and they relate to mathematical definitions of: Information, Energy, Force, Matter, Motion, Mass, Space, and Time. Furthermore, my maths do not require changing existing science in any way, but rather just extending the concept of the vector to Mass and Time, just as we all agree Space represents a vector field.

RMT

 

[NoTime323]

well you 2 are having fun i see
I just wonder why either of you care so much about eachother's opinions,
you seem to both be very intelligent....and you are agruing opinions, facts examined from different angles to form opinions.

I'm sure you both already know it's pointless
and doesn't matter

 

[jmpet]

>What scientific verifiable facts about anything can you give me then? Can you tell me what a hydrogen atom looks like with absolute certainty?<

>>Plenty... how about from my domain of experience? It is a scientifically verifiable fact that aerodynamic forces on a body vary with the square of the velocity of the body through its fluid. That's part of Bernoulli's Principle which has been experimentally verified over and over...and this fact has been what aviation is based upon. As to what hydrogen looks like, I assume you know we live in a RELATIVE universe, so the only "absolute certainty" is that there is no such thing as "absolute certainty". However, without knowing exactly how a hydrogen atom looks, we certainly do know a lot about it via its chemical interactions... again, empirically verified by measurement.<<

I ask if you can tell me about what a hydrogen atom looks like and you start with "plenty" then end with "not knowing exactly how a hydrogen atom looks" so you don't know. You've done all but answer the question.

For that matter, every other comment or question put you you reply by attacking then defending then justifying your position leaving us no closer to an answer to the question or statement which proves that going tit for tat with you is useless because there is no additional information to glean from you by asking you questions.

And on that note,

>Let me explain how this will likely transpire: I can certainly start out with simple concepts (simple differentials related to simple concepts). But it won't take long before I will have to resort to what some people think are "complex mathematics" in order to exhibit why my maths are correct (and accepted by the scientific community).<

Wonderful. Let's start with the simple concepts. It's all yours.

>Now... if you DO continue to understand and agree with my math once we get beyond vector calculus, and start moving into eigenvectors and eigenvalues<

Holy crap! I have to understand what more ten dollar words mean?!! And since when do people have to "agree on math"? Isn't math numbers; tangable things...facts? Can numbers mean anything but a numerical value? No wait- let's not get sidetracked. Scratch that.

>there will also come a point where I am not willing to share the remainder of my work... for the simple fact that I am still working on it and I am seeking to publish it formally.<

So you're basing conclusions on incomplete data, right?

>But honestly, if you don't have a grasp on vector calculus, I don't think we would ever get that far.<

Let's give it a try anyway. Who knows, maybe Titor will pop in and tell you if you're right or wrong.

>But perhaps I will try to explain the simple beginnings of my approach. In fact, you can find them on this forum, and they relate to mathematical definitions of: Information, Energy, Force, Matter, Motion, Mass, Space, and Time.<

Good. Let's begin. I am all ears.

>Furthermore, my maths do not require changing existing science in any way, but rather just extending the concept of the vector to Mass and Time, just as we all agree Space represents a vector field.<

Now it's mathS? There's more than one math? I have a lot to learn. Start with the simple part, I'll tell you when it gets too smart for me to understand it.

Lemmie ask- when you wrote:

>No, it really is not a cop-out, and only someone who has studied undergraduate science/engineering math would know it is not a cop-out. There are vector calculus functions (for example, look up the Kronecker Delta function or Dirac Delta function on google) that are by no means intuitive, and yet they describe quite faithfully some of the mechanics of how our universe works. I'll continue later this evening.<

Did you mean you'd continue by telling us all about your wonderful math, or mean you'd continue to roll, duck and cover?

Still waiting for your maths

As you wrote- "I've got some math of my own (which I have shared some of in this forum). Does yours involve tensor calculus?" so let's get started. The floor's all yours, please begin. Remember- start easy, then get to the hard parts.

 

[RainmanTime]

jmpet,

For that matter, every other comment or question put you you reply by attacking then defending then justifying your position leaving us no closer to an answer to the question or statement which proves that going tit for tat with you is useless because there is no additional information to glean from you by asking you questions.

Let me begin by saying I have attempted to keep this conversation with you on a civil level. The times I have resorted to satirical or cutting rhetoric is when you exhibited the same nastiness in your response. You accuse me of attacking? If you think that is attacking, you haven't seen anything yet. Judging from the way you completely tore-up and made fun of a brand new poster over in the "Time Travel Claims" forum (thanks for pointing that out, Creedo), I would conclude that you have an attitude that can NOT be civil, as you are too interested in tearing people up rather than having a civil conversation. YOU made the decision to want to go "tit for tat" with me. I did not decide this. So if you want me to continue, and respond in such a way to make you look silly, I can play that game. Let's start with your first response:

I ask if you can tell me about what a hydrogen atom looks like and you start with "plenty" then end with "not knowing exactly how a hydrogen atom looks" so you don't know. You've done all but answer the question.

It appears you have a real problem keeping track of your own questions. Now I am going to quote you, and make it clear that you asked TWO questions. Are you ready? Put down the Jolt and pay attention:

jmpet: What scientific verifiable facts about anything can you give me then? Can you tell me what a hydrogen atom looks like with absolute certainty?

Did you catch that? There were TWO questions you asked there, and I do believe I was responding to BOTH. So maybe you should go back and re-read my answers understanding that I was attempting to answer both of your questions, and that your flippant response only serves to make you look like a fool, even though I know it was your attempt to make me look foolish.

Holy crap! I have to understand what more ten dollar words mean?!!

Oh no, little buddy... it is MUCH worse than that! You actually have to understand the concepts behind these words, such as linear transformations. And it also might help for you to know why linear transformations are so useful in math and science.

And since when do people have to "agree on math"?

In order for the maths to be useful in describing physical reality, there must be agreement between the maths and the physical situation they describe. So you are correct, it is not people that must agree on maths, but that the maths defined must agree with empircal evidence.

Isn't math numbers; tangable things...facts?

If that is what you think mathematics is, then we have a bigger problem. Arithmetic could be considered "just numbers". Mathematics is a language to describe.... pretty much anything.

Can numbers mean anything but a numerical value? No wait- let's not get sidetracked. Scratch that.

Too late... looks like you've already exhibited a fair amount of ignorance about mathematics.

So you're basing conclusions on incomplete data, right?

Wrong. My conclusions are based on how the maths I have developed agree with empircal evidence, and furthermore extend existing concepts in physics to both Time and Mass.

Now it's mathS? There's more than one math? I have a lot to learn.

Apparantly you do. The term is mathematicS , and it is commonly plural although used with a singular verb. I tend to use "maths" more often, even though it is commonly a British usage... simply because it is a plural term. Is that alright with you, or would you like to cast more satirical aspersions on the way I communicate? That seems to be one of your big targets.

Did you mean you'd continue by telling us all about your wonderful math, or mean you'd continue to roll, duck and cover?

If you'd stop the "tit for tat" silliness of trying to do nothing more than make me look stupid (and at the same time making yourself look quite stupid), I will begin a new thread so we can leave this one behind.... given that we have gone quite off the topic.

The floor's all yours, please begin. Remember- start easy, then get to the hard parts.

Very well. Please join me in the thread I will start to cover this topic. But now let me advise you of a certain fact: I work two jobs. One is my 40-hour/week gig as an engineer and one is as an engineering professor on TUE and THU. Thus, I'm quite busy. If I don't get back to you right away, I'd ask you to be patient. I will not leave you hanging. If you insist on having a little satirical temper tantrum, and trying to insult me just because I take my time addressing things that you say, then this behavior will delay us.

Perhaps we can start afresh in the new thread, and if you agree to keep your snide remarks to an absolute minimum, I will refrain from responding in kind. Deal?
RMT

 

[newbie_0]

55 new posts? I want to keep up with this thread but I think I'm going to wait for the movie. (The movie about this board, not about tightor)

Boomer is what Darby called him. Interesting, when you think about MEM's interpretation. The Canadian band Tragically Hip wrote a song called "Save the Planet" that begins

The man 'cross the street he don't move a muscle
Though he's all covered in dust
When constitutions of granite can't save the planet
What's to become of us

The also wrote a song called the 100th meridian in which the last line of the song mentions Ry Cooder:

If I die of Vanity, promise me, promise me
That if they bury me some place I don't want to be
That you'll dig me up and transport me
Unceremoniously away from the swollen city breeze, garbage bag trees
Whispers of disease, and acts of enormity
And lower me slowly, sadly, and properly
Get Ry Cooder to sing my eulogy

Ry Cooder was a great american artist with classical training who had an entire album called "Boomer's Story". Here is the last verse of the title track:

Listen to a Boomer's story
Pay attention to what I say
Well, I hear another train a-comin'
Guess I'll be on my way
If you wanna do me a favor
When I lay me down and die
Just dig my grave beside the railroad
So I can hear the trains go by, boys
So I can hear the trains go by
Hear the trains go
Hear the trains go by
Just dig my grave beside the railroad
So I can hear the trains go by

....hehe

hey, its as relevant as anything else about this particular subject.

 

[jmpet]

Well let's go to the videotape then. You had no comment from my first three posts but "caught on to me" with my fourth, to which come these little gems:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"So what analysis (and facts) is this judgement based upon?"

"history from 2000 through now has clearly shown him wrong on more than one count. Wouldn't you agree?"

"No, I don't think I've "gotta admit". Why do you think the invasion of Iraq was "weird"? It was certainly predictable given Saddam's invasion of Kuwait, the first gulf war, threat on Daddy Bush's life from Saddam's regieme, and the events of 9/11/2001. In fact, that's probably why Boomer alluded to it."

"Mind if I point out that what you placed in quotes is not a direct quote? And why is it enough to convince you? Have you actually heard of "Waco-like" events? Do tell."

"You seem to have an awfully low burden of proof, because I can think of a LOT more proof he could have given"

"He did? Could you perhaps find the exact quote and the date of the post he said this? I'd like to verify what you've said here."

"While we may not know what political philosophy you espouse, we certainly know which one you don't like! Your bias is showing."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The overall tone of these comments immediately jumps out to me as someone who thinks he has the answers to everything, ending your "diatrabe" with the summarialistic comment "your bias is showing", which only reinforces your allegedly morally-superior perspective. In short, all you have done is throw suspicion on every single thing I said with a sarcastic overtone, as if you already know I am wrong. And this was your first response to me.

Then I made one comment on another forum here, then another on the same board, to which once again you systematically challenged every single thing I said:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Google would hardly be classified as a search engine that only gathers salient, verifiable FACTs. Whether a point is salient or not depends on many things. Facts are less slippery."

"Does it matter? This sounds like the kind of criteria you would use to select a 5th grade class president!"

"Really!? I'm interested. Care to share? I've got some math of my own (which I have shared some of in this forum). Does yours involve tensor calculus?"

"Since you appear to have a working knowledge of science, I shouldn't have to remind you that you cannot apply the 2.5% "stuff" unless you know what metric the percentage is based upon."

"Boomer tried to tie this 2.5% to something quantifiable (and he still failed) resulting in me getting a really good chuckle out of it, because it was utterly clear where he "stole" this number from: I laughed my a$$ off at that one!"

"You are missing other points/results of the situation in Iraq. One relates to a time-honored tradition of warfare: Fight them on THEIR land, before they can get to OUR land."

"Please provide me a list... especially the part of "when he said it would" happen. If anything Titor avoided giving quaintifiable dates to most of his "predictions". Do enlighten me, as I've been here since Titor was here."

"Huh? Now that's just silly."

"This is precisely the "tactic" Boomer used, and you seem to fall for it hook, line, and sinker!"

"Same tactic of vagueness he used above with the Red Sea example. It really piqued your interest, didn't it? That's because it was intended to do that. But when you look at it, it has no verifiable facts about anything in it. If he had solidly predicted something that he was not going to do anything to stop, then you might have something interesting."

""We" actually proved it? I don't think so."

"I find it hard to believe that anyone can be "truly objective"."

"I could just as easily pick on you for your overuse of the shallow and non-specific word "stuff". The vocabulary a person uses has often been said to be a window into that person's mindset. What do our vocabularies say about the two of us?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
So why do I point all of this out? Because now magically, your position is:

"Let me begin by saying I have attempted to keep this conversation with you on a civil level. The times I have resorted to satirical or cutting rhetoric is when you exhibited the same nastiness in your response. You accuse me of attacking? If you think that is attacking, you haven't seen anything yet."

Somehow, I was the one attacking you, not the other way around.

Then you go on to say:

"Judging from the way you completely tore-up and made fun of a brand new poster over in the "Time Travel Claims" forum (thanks for pointing that out, Creedo), I would conclude that you have an attitude that can NOT be civil, as you are too interested in tearing people up rather than having a civil conversation."

I am the first to jump to someone's cause provided it is a just cause. But when someone claims something that is easily provable but there is still no proof, and when upon closer investigation it turns out there are some basic facts lacking, it makes the whole story fall apart. Why do you think I ripped those people apart, yet I still defend Titor? Because Titor had a point to make beyond "I am a time traveller", these other people say they're time travellers for the sake of saying it and nothing more- they don't even have a good story to tell.

>YOU made the decision to want to go "tit for tat" with me. I did not decide this. So if you want me to continue, and respond in such a way to make you look silly, I can play that game.<

As I already illustrated, you started it, I responded to it. Call me wacky, I have a problem with know-it-alls. When someone attacks me from out of the blue and it's a badly executed attack yeah, I have a problem with that. And as far as attacking, you should thank me for not addressing your latent "earthquake prediction abilities" which deserve as much merit as the guy who saw Jesus. If you have a point to make, than make it on the other board you started and make it with your superior maths of the universe. We have enough court jesters.

And finally, you calling Titor "Boomer" infers you know something special about Titor's identity. And when I asked you why you kept calling him Boomer, you said because he talks like someone who is from the baby boomer generation, not someone from the future. So since you have no insight for calling him Boomer, and since he asked to be called John Titor, I don't see why you continue to call him Boomer.

 

[RainmanTime]

So since you have no insight for calling him Boomer, and since he asked to be called John Titor, I don't see why you continue to call him Boomer.

How about just to tick you off, Ren?

RMT

 

[TimeNot_0]

I am only replying to post not to the last post.

Get a freakin' life!

First of all, Titor if he was talking was only talking about probabilities and the possibility of time travel (by his given means). He was not going to explain it, and did not.

Probabilities has to do with higher dimensions and all the math is done in higher dimensions first to find solutions that relate to reality as we know it!

Divergence is related to all possible quantum worlds, which is probabilities.

Frankly reading most of these postings of unimaginative minds must make Titor a genius!
And real physicists have commented on what they think and how they think about all of it!

And it is quantum computers doing probabilities in the future, and SuperSting Theory with M-11 or M-10 theory and the rest of the so-called debate is back down only in your realities. That does not mean that the reality is real, only according to you people posting this dribble!

Get a freakin' life!

 

[jmpet]

>>It appears you have a real problem keeping track of your own questions. Now I am going to quote you, and make it clear that you asked TWO questions. Are you ready? Put down the Jolt and pay attentiion.<<

See- it's
1. Insult the other person (It appears you have a real problem keeping track of your own questions)
2. Assert your superiority over that person (Now I am going to quote you, and make it clear that you asked TWO questions)
3. Personally insult the other person (Put down the Jolt and pay attentiion)
4. Address the issue:

>jmpet: What scientific verifiable facts about anything can you give me then? Can you tell me what a hydrogen atom looks like with absolute certainty?<

>>Did you catch that? There were TWO questions you asked there, and I do believe I was responding to BOTH. So maybe you should go back and re-read my answers understanding that I was attempting to answer both of your questions, and that your flippant response only serves to make you look like a fool, even though I know it was your attempt to make me look foolish.<<

See?!! It's
1. Insult the other person (Did you catch that? There were TWO questions you asked there, and I do believe I was responding to BOTH.)
2. Assert your superiority over that person (So maybe you should go back and re-read my answers understanding that I was attempting to answer both of your questions)
3. Personally insult the other person (and that your flippant response only serves to make you look like a fool, even though I know it was your attempt to make me look foolish.)
4. Address the issue...?

Well- where is the answer?

Then it continues:

>Holy crap! I have to understand what more ten dollar words mean?!!

>>Oh no, little buddy... it is MUCH worse than that! You actually have to understand the concepts behind these words, such as linear transformations. And it also might help for you to know why linear transformations are so useful in math and science.<<

1. Insult (Oh no, little buddy... it is MUCH worse than that!)
2. Assert (You actually have to understand the concepts behind these words, such as linear transformations.)
3. Personally insult (And it also might help for you to know why linear transformations are so useful in math and science)
4. And the answer to my question is...?

The problem with this is that once again you're asserting your morally higher ground. The post starts with

"Let me begin by saying I have attempted to keep this conversation with you on a civil level. The times I have resorted to satirical or cutting rhetoric is when you exhibited the same nastiness in your response. You accuse me of attacking? If you think that is attacking, you haven't seen anything yet."

Then goes on to insult, assert and insult and provide NO ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS ASKED. And on top of it, we can also add "If you think that is attacking, you haven't seen anything yet" to your list of taunts and threats against me.


And of course after you're done insulting, asserting, insulting then not answering you end your post with "Perhaps we can start afresh in the new thread, and if you agree to keep your snide remarks to an absolute minimum, I will refrain from responding in kind. Deal?" as if you were on some moral high ground all along. Of course you want a new thread- it's much easier starting a new thread than ANSWERING ANY OF THE QUESTIONS PUT TO YOU. I asked them repeatedly, after all, and every time the response was the same: insult, assert, insult, change the subject.

It's quite simple- I hold you to the same objectivity you hold others to.

 

[jmpet]

I apologize to everyone, as I did before I started this tit for tat. I know he'd take us down this long, dark road and it's neccesary- this guy thinks he has the answer to everything which is great, but when it comes to the "answer-part", he has no answers to provide. Thank me down the road for this, otherwise this person would go on raving and ranting, attacking and debunking, insulting and condensending instead of listening rationally and objectively and learning.

But the ball's in his court- every "attack" or mine has been a defense against him and besides, he has just started telling us about his maths so let's all listen. Hey- the guy could be absolutely right- in that case I will happily go on record saying I was wrong which is something suspiciously absent from all of his historical posts.

 

[RainmanTime]

See?!! It's
1. Insult the other person (Did you catch that? There were TWO questions you asked there, and I do believe I was responding to BOTH.)
2. Assert your superiority over that person (So maybe you should go back and re-read my answers understanding that I was attempting to answer both of your questions)
3. Personally insult the other person (and that your flippant response only serves to make you look like a fool, even though I know it was your attempt to make me look foolish.)
4. Address the issue...?

Yep. Exactly right. If you read the introduction and actually understood it, I made it clear I was going to rip you a new one just as you were doing to me. Here:

So if you want me to continue, and respond in such a way to make you look silly, I can play that game.

The problem is, you are so intent on one-upping me, and you are in such a rage, that you can't even see that I did address the issue (i.e. answer both of your questions). Here again:

Well- where is the answer?

The answer was there all along. You just came up with some reason in your own head to ignore it. Let's revisit:

jmpet: What scientific verifiable facts about anything can you give me then? Can you tell me what a hydrogen atom looks like with absolute certainty?

RainmanTime: Plenty... how about from my domain of experience? It is a scientifically verifiable fact that aerodynamic forces on a body vary with the square of the velocity of the body through its fluid. That's part of Bernoulli's Principle which has been experimentally verified over and over...and this fact has been what aviation is based upon. As to what hydrogen looks like, I assume you know we live in a RELATIVE universe, so the only "absolute certainty" is that there is no such thing as "absolute certainty". However, without knowing exactly how a hydrogen atom looks, we certainly do know a lot about it via its chemical interactions... again, empirically verified by measurement.

What part of these two answers do you not understand? I gave you one scientific verifiable fact about "something". I then pointed out you can't know anything with absolute certainty (do I need to quote Godel's Incompleteness Theorem?), and then admitted that I do not not know exactly how a hydrogen atom looks, but I explained one method of how we do know what a hydrogen atom does.

Instead of ranting, starting a flame war, and ignoring when I do respond to something you've said, you could cut the crap and be serious. But I can see you are on a "mission". Have fun!
RMT

 

[jmpet]

Good. It was me all along. I was the protagonist, I was breaking balls. I was wrong, I was the bad guy. I am sorry, I won't do it again. Now can you reveal your math revelation to us all, or are you condemning all mankind because of me? You started a thread on another board, will you at least finish these great maths for mankind? Would it make you feel better if I went into my time machine a jumped a week into the future, would a week be enough time for you to explain you theory without me constantly interrupting?