Set of controls:

creedo299

creedo299

Epochal Historian
With any approaching phenomenon, coming as a way from any said variant of a supposed predicting time traveler, the following would have to be supposed.

One, that these predictions, had come from a two percent timeline divergence.
This means that the timeline that these predictions came from, is not our own, but a similar timeline, therefore, now out timeline.

Two, that there are intimations of said past timeline disturbances, which was the appearing of advertisement signs, infront of stores restaurants as reported at Anomalies.net/
#I feel that this is important and this is why Im posting this.

Three, that due to a process, known as cross timeline echoing, via variable mass geometrical changes, then the structures of each timeline involved, would have been irreparably changed.
So it may be that the nature of the supposing coming happenstance, may have changed in part, not half wholly, or changed in a degree phase change, almost to one hundred and seventy degrees out of normal phase change.

These controls do not involve people, per say, however a set of controls which verify the process of what might happen.
 
Gross Heisenberg observers stance report:

In my service in posting here, I have been harassed, threatened, had my private messages in-posting board gone into, had my home computer invaded, been probably abducted, attempted to be conscripted and a number of other things, too weird to go on with.

The fact is, that I was only intrested in being a time travel board commentator and really do not give a rats as*, who at the upper end of what, does not like, or desire this.

My station here, was very, very, lowly; not great.

So you the reader, or armature researcher, will have to adjust some of what is offered here. If you are to do this through the purest, most stringent scientific sence?
 
Said Pamela Moore, who in our circumspect, here, was one of the main tellers of John Titor data, had stated that John Titors said plac,ment of his worldline, was a two percent divergence, from this timeline.

In the abstract, one can use the face of a clock, as sections of radians, off a central point, to where these other sections of reality might be?

The problem we encounter, which is directly opposed to the tensor twenty, of everything staying in its place, as the poster Rainmantime, has posted here, is that these associations between the interface of two opposing, but communicating timelines, is that knowledgably transgression from one timeline to another, causes barrowing changes, sometimes, within both timeline at once.

*These would be items, such as stop signs appearing where there had never been one before, a stray pet or animal seemingly appearing out of nowhere.

Why this happens in an extra-numored series of affairs, is that the settings, within each timeline, of items, events as they are and or how they are supposed to be, have been altered.

So in order to balance things out a bit, each timeline may barrow form the other, in order to balance itself.

This process, sometimes occurs through a complex series of self imposed Cartesian mathematics, known as variant scalier transal mathematics.
Very similar to, however not the same as the Monticarlo principles of mathematics, involved traditionally as said from the Casino on the Island Of Monticarlo.

This process also occurs, spontaneously via large buried object, planetary mechanics, gravity shifts and a host of other phenominons, which are too numerous to mention here.

> The problem is, that in the creation of John Titror, if he was actually a real time traveler, may have caused, is for the timeline to barrow from each other, in order to even things out.

Now the problem is, is one tries to cover up, say the possibility that John Titor was not real, however a fictional character, this might confuse the timelines, as in a way, timelines are self aware or modulating entities.

So by the act of trying to path up the problem with Titor, things are only being made worse.
 
Said Pamela Moore, who in our circumspect, here, was one of the main tellers of John Titor data, had stated that John Titors said plac,ment of his worldline, was a two percent divergence, from this timeline.

In the abstract, one can use the face of a clock, as sections of radians, off a central point, to where these other sections of reality might be?
Click to expand...
I am not asking for abstract, and once again it seems you are avoiding my direct question. Therefore I shall rephrase to be more direct:

Please provide the ratio equation of measurable quantities by which you calculate this "two percent divergence". Not analogies, but an equation with measurable variables. For as we all know, this is not only possible but necessary whenever you wish to refer to any sort of percentage measure.

Answer the question please, counselor.
RMT
 
This is not my source data.The source for this data was said Pamela Moore, who came up with the Titror claim of the two percent worldline divergence.

If your problem with this source material is Pamela Moore, then I suggest that you contact an MOP from another board, who post here?He might find you a contact, then you can interrogate her, if that is your wish?
 
Hi Creeds,
This is not my source data.The source for this data was said Pamela Moore, who came up with the Titror claim of the two percent worldline divergence.
Click to expand...
I know that. But perhaps you are missing my point. It seems as if, in your post, that you are simply accepting this faux measure of worldline divergence as if it is a real scientific measure. Your analysis and presumptions are therefore based on this measure, and its presumed reality.

I am putting forth a very scientific premise here, which is well-backed by the scientific method, and that is this: You cannot rely on some measurement of some phenomenon as being "true and accurate" until you can operationalize that phenomenon (IOW reduce it to a reproducible practice). Hence any suppostions you arrive at that are based on (or even take into account in any way) Titor's 2% worldline divergence are not scientific, but only speculative.

RMT
 
Back
Top