Physics issues with the Titor traveling device

M

mbkennel

Temporal Novice
I've been intrigued by the Titor story. If it's a hoax (very likely) it seems to be quite well constructed.

His writing style is devastating, harsh and consistent.

I'm not going to talk much about his philosophy, politics in this post.

At a minimum we can only go by the apparent evidence which is
the pictures and the documents. I am sure some of these have
been addressed already, but I cannot find them after long searching.

1) the manual. I'm sure it's been pointed out but were all the
fonts except Courier erased in the nuclear holocaust? WTF?
The diagrams which explicitly refer to the 'time travel' function
are pretty low quality with bitmapping.
Especially look at the schematic diagram "BASIC COMPONENTS"
and how misplaced the numbers in the circles are. Also
The fonts on the numbers 1 .. 12 is larger and misplaced
from the following text. Also, no page numbers?

The cutaway diagram is far more impressive. If it's a hoax its
probably taken from a real diagram of something else. (What?)
If the graphics artists were so good on that one, why did they
suck so bad on the abstract schematic?

No doubt JT could cook up some things like "in the future people
are not worried about aesthetics but just getting the job done. You
have to work hard and quickly, not like you lazy scumbags."

now on to physics.

2) the "bent laser beam". As has been mentioned before, this could
be produced by a pen laser in a fiber optic tube. Contrary to
what some say, not all fiber optics are designed for long haul communication,
and they will disperse as seen in the picture. Google for "decorative fiber optics".

Here is my issue: if the laser light is bent, THEN WHY NOT THE BACKGROUND?
If magically you can change local gravitation to bend light like that, everything
you saw through that would be potentially warped in an odd way.

Conveniently enough, the picture is very dim and fuzzy and you can hardly see anything
in the really bent part.

Also, note how the color of the beam is mostly red but then some whitish. Of course
the photo is so unclear you can get away with alot, but if you used a thick
decorative fiber optic thing, it looks whitish clear.

Also note how the "beam" is bent down, just as holding a fiber optic cable would
bend under gravity. Lucky, that's "how the tipler field works". uh hummmmmm

Also notice how the beam is so uniformly lit from its start to its end.
I remember in a laser lab when they put on some aerosol to see the beam,
you REALLY notice where the aerosol (smoke) is, and its density.
there's enough smoke everywhere to visualize the laser beam, but you can't
see it otherwise? Ok maybe because of the dynamic range contrast, but it bothers
me. Remember this is supposedly a cigar. And no secondary scattering visible?
(i.e. scatters off something in beam, then scatters off nearby smoke to the eye).

3) Now this I think is the really damning issue. So supposing that ""somehow""
you can stabilize naked singularities/microscopic black holes by spinning them
injecting electrons on to them. Ummmmmm ok. And somehow you can manipulate the gravitational
fields to go through time. Ummmm ok. These grav fields are so big you can bend light
on a lab scale.

Here's my question: HOW DO YOU TURN IT OFF? How is it that those two singularities
can sit there with local light-bending power (which in standard general relativity
would take something much more massive than the Sun, as the Sun was observed
to bend starlight by arc-seconds) and yet with the switch off, do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING?

The pictures of the "unit" look perfectly normal. But you CANNOT turn off the
laws of physics! In other words, It is very hard for me to imagine a
situation where you have these powerful singularities which would not persist
in making observable gravitational effects continuously.

4) The unit would have to be powered on continuously in order to "contain"
the singularities if such a thing were even remotely physically real.
E.g. enough electrostatic or magnetic force to hold however much their
mass was. Did JT ever mention something about the generator?
If there was no containment, the point like singularities of course
would start falling in free fall slicing through any of the matter
right to the Earth's center of gravity.


5) i'm sure people have gone over the IBM 5100 story in detail but here's
my take. IBM in 1975
didn't have anything to do with Unix, and the IBM 5100 would not know
how to "translate" any Unix code of any form. To fix, interpret, IBM 360 mainframe
code in 2038, maybe, but of course the IBM mainframes don't have a 2038 problem to
generate a time travel story. And the solution is recompiling 32 bits into 64 bits.
OR CHANGING THE CLOCK. D'oh. Define 0 to be seconds past 'N-day'. They won't
care about records from before that anyway, right?

Oh the excuse will be "JT is feeding some misinformation intentionally". blah blah
blah.

6) I promised not to go into politics, but this is the biggest inconsistency.
Supposing you are in JT's world after a nuclear war. WHO THE !^!^! WOULD WANT
TO BUILD A TIME MACHINE?

Consider the infrastructure necessary. Assume even that CERN somehow was
not nuked despite JT's statement that Europe bit it. (OK swiss neutrality
and all that).

After a nuclear war, who would have the motivation to try something crazy?
JT said that in 2038 everybody is expected to pull their own weight.
Who would be interested in funding particle physicists and gravitation theorists
and spending lots of capital on exotic experiments? Even now these are
considered more "superfluous" than other forms of more practical physics
and engineering funding? A time machine, all to get one stupid computer?

Wouldn't people be saying "we don't want a time machine you poindexter,
we want a freaking TRACTOR! We want a water purifier! We want pharmaceuticals!"
I couldn't imagine a single moment being wasted to pursue something which
even in 2016 would be an extremely exotic subject.

This is contradicted by JT's own assertions about the strict behavioral
codes and ideology of supposedly 2038.

If I had gone through a nuclear war and had a time machine (which went with me)
I sure as hell would go back to a more prosperous time, along with some
stock tips and live out my life. How would anybody stop me?
 
You are the worst type of skeptic, ONE WHO USES CAPS EXSESSIVLY!!!!!!!!

Don't you think that by 2038 they would have self illumanting laser pointers?

Why do you people ever post anymore, to debunk JT? it's not gonna happen, there are enough people with enough reason that could prove you wrong all the way to 2038, so please try to disprove time travel not JT, it's a waste of a good thread.
 
Good thread with good questions raised.

Why do you people ever post anymore, to debunk JT? it's not gonna happen, there are enough people with enough reason that could prove you wrong all the way to 2038, so please try to disprove time travel not JT, it's a waste of a good thread.
Click to expand...

I'm actually hoping some people try to defend JT here because I find it to be a good hoax. I'm pretty new to this JT thing and I'm interested to see what people's opinions are - especially those who claim to be time travellers themselves....
 
I ran this past Darby, Pamela, Anomalies.net, even Rick, I think and still no responce to this simple question.

Why is it it seems that the powers that be, are letting this pitch go over the plate, without swinging....??

MB'

One of the issues concerning the said time displacement unit, is that the singularities are really not said counted as singularities, however as a non-specific field, when these said singularities are overlapped?

A double field, would be a non-specific boundary and this would not even have to be a uniform said supposed black hole.

The main problem with the Kerrs boundaries, is how does one get an injection of electrons to the outer shell field, which is said to be some eight feet away, if the gennis point of the double Kerr boundaries, are in the said G.E. contiment unit?

This means that the injection of electrons to go either forward or backwards in time, would have to be metaphase interspatial, as the interior of the shell would act as a boundary to prevent electron injection into the double Kerrs to begin with?

This point over and over again, is not being understood, nor even attempted to be understood and rest the validity of the entire Titor case as to whether it happened or not to begin with?
 
I guess I don't understand quite what your question is.

One thing that is certainly true: General Relativity is a
nonlinear classical field theory.

This means that the field (i.e. the spatial metric topology)
generated from two sources (mass) is NOT the sum of the
field generated by each source alone, and added up. {Gravity
in the weak (Newtonian) limit is of course linear.}

I.e. it is not like classical electromagnetism which is
extremely linear up until you have enough local energy
to spontaneously pop electrons and positrons out of the
vaccum (i.e. gamma ray energies.

Since the time travler never posted the "equations of motion"
for his presumed dual singularity thing we can't verify
what the field would look like.

Again the central problem is : how do you turn it off?
what is the physical difference between "on" and "off"?

Here's the thing. If you make somehow a "closed timelike curve"
with a mass, then you also have to fly on it, while the thing that
makes it is "stationary". That's how the """conventional"""
wormhole idea goes. It's more like on Star Trek DS9. You
have to fly through it somehow.

It seems hard to believe even more that if you stay stationary
with this generator that you can move through time and space anyway,
but still.

Note that if they had this time generator it seems they would also have
very powerful inertial space propulsion, i.e. warp drive. After all
they said that in the early tests the devices reappeared miles away
in an instant.

It seems that most people would be much more interseted in the practical
abilities of a massive anti-gravity cargo and passenger transport craft
than a personal time travel device in a corvette, especially when there
may be real serious ethical issues involved in time travel.

Funny that JT doesn't mention, 'oh yeah, by the way, we can fly around
the world in 15 minutes, and we're going to Alpha Centauri in 4 years'
in what life is like in 2038. That would be pretty freaking big change.

It would be like going back from 1950 to 1910 and saying "yeah
we can diagnose tumors with this new x-ray device" and forgetting
to mention the A-bomb.
 
not that i belive the titor story, but to be fair, the 'time machine' (TM) isnt staying stationary at all in the view of the universe. It is just staying stationary in the view of the local area/world. Because as Titor put it, it takes an 'image' of the the local magnetic field to where the TM is, and compares that to every time it goes through. This is kind of bothersome to me. Because people think of time as a bunch of conscutive ticks. While im sure the universe doesnt operate like that, time flows. So how is the machine suposed to make steps, where there are none? Regardless, in Titors story, the machine is always moving relative to the universe, only not to the planet.
 
mbkennel' In terms that anyone can understand and there is no excuse not to understand; say you are in an eight fourteen footed raidiused beach ball, however all that is done, is to add another beach ball and then overlap these balls, at the overlap tangents.

So you are in the center of two overlapped beachballs.

The second point is, in order for the Kerrs to work as a time travel device, you must be able to place tiny pearls, on the outsides of these overlapped beach balls.

So they must be made to be able to be dematerized in order to pass through the skins of the beach balls, and then rematerize once they appear to the other side of these two overlapped beach balls.

The beach balls represent the kerrs nonspecific overlapped outer shell of these two black holes, and the pearls, represent the electrons, which must be deposited to the outside of the beach balls.

In all of John Titor's postings, he never even roughly mentioned this factor, of the nonspecific Kerrs, not having to rematerialize the electrons on the outside of the eight foot from center outer shells.

These don't have to be perfect shells, however only an approximation.

I cant get any more clearer and or simplistic than this.

This has nothing or very little to do with relativity, as relativity is parsed in frequency realms only.

This phenomenon of the outer shells of the kerr, is only an approximate action and not truly a standard black hole.

From the said John Titor training photo;I too am wondering why smoke from the cigar would hang in the air and not distort, where the said gennised laser beam would start to bend off by gravity.
 
Note it would be possible for the smoke to hang, as smoke is made of particles, and not light.

Light is photons, which are units of energetic pressure, not mass in dynes.

So the smoke from the cigar, in theory, might well have hung in the air, if this were only a training gig.

So one could not equate mass and light pressure as being under the same gravitational attraction, which the double-time-localied mass spheres.

Time is time-mass-gravity, which is translated into locals.

This process would be inversed within the double-arity twin spheres of the kerr, so mass gravity neutral, (or gravity refined to a locale), my be one of the corresponding factors, held within the double simulated only overlapped, black holes?
 
If you warp space, everything in that space is warped. By definition.
The centerpiece of Einsteinian relativity is that all physics in that space is
in the generalized metric with certain properties. As far as we know this is true,
but we can't mathematically figure out how to get QM in a deep way.

note that when you see smoke, you see it because of reflections of light from
the smoke particles. So that image, like the laser should be warped if there
really is a (very very) strong gravitational field. If you stuck your arm
out into it it would appear to be warped too. (Note I think
the whole thing is a fake.)

I don't understand your other question about your beach balls at all.

I'm saying that if you have a picture of what something looks like with
one black hole, it will not be the same when you add another black hole near by.
I.e. you cannot sum up implied fields of two black holes.
 
Back
Top