this is jon titor

[RainmanTime]

Nothing you are saying is unique. It has all been hashed over and over again. You will not accept what I have to say, but that does not mean I am not correct.

My personal belief is that once you look at MWI, it becomes clear as day that the 'theory' seems to be 'for all practical purposes', an umberella or maybe a glove of idea that fits snugly over the existing, seemingly 'unconnected' realms in not only science, but paranormal, personal and other areas that are 'mysterious'. To digest or understand the Titor tale, the only way any of it makes any internally-consistent sense is by using the backdrop of MWI as, at least, a working hypothesis and thus factor into ones thinking. (Or, more accurately, replace our awareness. Much like a 3d understanding of our surroundings and nonlocal surroundings being replaced with a consistent 4d awareness.)

The problem is you are "interpreting" MWI in the way you must in order to make Titor's story unfalsifiable. It is the same "interpretive dance" you are doing in all your posts. When something is unfalsifiable, that means it is not scientific. And your interpretation of MWI has nothing whatsoever to do with the (brief) paper where MWI was introduced. Your interpretation is the pop-sci interpretation. As such, nothing you have said is by any means scientific support for anything Titor said. The biggest reason is because the entire Titor story is not falsifiable as it stands.

Otherwise, then the story doesnt make any sense. I think this is where people have big trouble in digesting the 'predictions.

You do realize there is an entire genre of storytelling where stories do not have to make sense, right? It is called fiction. Occam's Razor applies to the Titor story moreso than any other situation (i.e. ones that are actually falsifiable)

An example is with the seemingly failed 08 Olympics prediction. On the surface, the prediction never happened. To most of us, this is a clear example of why John 'must' be a fake. The Original John was from an approx 2 percent divergence worldline to our own, or his being equal distance relative. Now, I dont know much about the why's, and answers, but someone mentioned somewhere that the 08 Olympics were marred by controversy at the time and they mentioned an approx amount of protesters. For this, we will say, hypothetically there were 100 individual protestors. Now, If I am to 'consider a 'resolvable conclusion' that somehow is a working explanation on John's validity, and MWI's, then the only explanation that I can come up with is that approx 2 percent (divergence) of Protesters, who would have otherwise possibly been the 'needle that broke the camels back', for whatever reasons (divergence) never showed up.
Sounds silly on the outset, how could approx 2 protesters be of any difference right?
Heres the intresting part.
it is very possible that the percentage of protesters 'missing' could well have been the most vocal and If they did happen to attend, they might have inspired the other protesters to be more adamant and vocal about the issue. The way I see it, the only way to take John's predictions seriously is to account for the MWI. Without it,the Titor story is full of seemingly 'failed' predictions and inconsistencies.
Now, as debate is often marred with bringing triviality, ego and personal attacks, I can only illustrate this with a very real example of divergence.
I have a favourite band, as we all do. Now, I know my favourite musical group consisted of 4 members. 2 were highly creative and innovative, but for the most part, the other 2 were accomplished, just not as creative.
Ok, so Band X, before they become popular, decide to enter a battle of the bands with 24 other musical groups of 4 members each. Again, this is just an example, so stay with me.
Band X is 4 members. 25 groups of 4 is 100 bandmembers.
What if there were an approx 2 percent divergence? Is it possible that my 2 percent, my 2 favourite band members did not attend the battle of the bands. a 2 percent divergence.
My favourite band never go on to fame, and I never hear amazing songs from them.
Instead of the 2 percent, the 2 creative people going on to being a very visible and major part of musical history, they were not.

I asked you to quantify how 2 percent is measured. You did not do it, as I predicted you would not. You gave a subjective description of how you think divergence works. The fact that neither Titor, nor you, can quantifiably define this divergence metric is one of the big things that contributes to the story being unfalsifiable, and thus not scientifically plausible.

In my eyes, this explanation works 'only' if we consider MWI.

Trying to understand most of what Titor said 'without' the MWI is flawed and really is damn confusing.
I think any of John's claims can be explained. You just need to accept the MWI, and it all makes a helluva lot more sense.

Im fairly confident any 'confusion' in the John story can be found to be 'internally consistent' in the MWI framework/mindset.

You keep bleating on and on about MWI as if no one is accepting it. You can stop that, because it is quite obvious to anyone who has read Titor's story, and understands what the MWI says, that this *was* the "McGuffin" that Titor was using as the lynchpin for his story. MWI is the very premise which gives rise to his need to introduce the "divergence" metric, which he never quantified (for a reason!).

So no one is even arguing with you that MWI is necessary for Titor's story to be "internally consistent." That is accepted, and must be given his story. So you are going on and on about a moot point. Instead, you should be seeking to actually quantify the McGuffin of "divergence" within the context of what the MWI actually has to say from a scientific perspective.

Until you do that, you are merely wasting your time, my time, and the time of anyone else who is reading this. Pun completely intended.
RMT

 

[J.T._9663]

WOnderfully written reply RMT. Thank you for taking the time to convey.
I will go back and look at the points you have made. Cheers

 

[J.T._9663]

And maybe you should provide some veridical evidence to support that claim? You could start by giving a scientific quantification of how one measures divergence, and from there proceed on to your evidence that EVERYTHING that Titor wrote about has come to pass within that 2.5% "divergence."

I expect, rather than begin to act on this challenge, instead you will just post non-scientific mumbo jumbo about how I should see your interpretation of events to meet John's predictions. Just like you want to re-interpret "civil war" to mean anything you wish.

"It is believed there is some sort of measurable quantum differences in worldlines. I am not an expert on that so I can offer little information."

"The divergence measurement refers to the local gravitational field as compared to the point of origin. It is merely an empirical indicator of overall change in a worldline. Some things that are quite different on one worldline have very little effect as time passes and the worldlines appear to "converge" again and look very similar. Worldline changes are not exponential; they act more like chaotic attractors with varying effect depending on their size and location."

"I was taught that time travel is strictly a local observation that can only be measured by the experience of an individual or single particle."

"10 January 2001 23:10
You mentioned a divergence percentage between time lines. How is it possible to measure divergence?
The measurement for worldline divergence is an observation variable isolated to the distortion unit. An effective analogy would be a "gravity radar". The unit's sensors take a "snapshot" of the local gravity around the unit before a flight. During travel, this baseline is periodically checked to make sure there are no major changes in the environment that would cause a catastrophic mass failure (brick wall appearing from nowhere). The percentage of VGL divergence from one worldline to another is a calculated guess by the three computers that control the unit based on its starting point. It is useless in describing characteristics of individual worldlines."

"Yes, a "ZD" is thought to be impossible. However, consider that an exact entry point "may" not be necessary to get home. The important factor is the path, not the destination. Under multiple world theory, there are an infinite number of "homes" that I could return to that don't have me there. The divergence for that window is somewhere near .0002377%."

"Differences between worldlines are measured from the perspective of the time traveler in terms of divergence percentage. The higher the divergence, the more "un-like" your destination worldline looks like compared to your worldline of origin. "

"Given that you have a 2.5% divergence from your worldline and the micro-singularities are subject to the same divergence, how do you keep them in phase?
Good thinking but that's not exactly the way they work and divergence is not cumulative.
Does the divergence extend into N-dimensions? Is the 2.5% the total error or is each dimension subject to the 2.5% divergence individually?
Yes, that's a little closer. You should perhaps change the "N" to and "X" to avoid string theory confusion. "







Take a look at my post count, pal. This ain't my first rodeo with clowns like you.
RMT

 

[gnostic]

J.T._9663,

Bravo!!!



Don’t forget your gas can!

gnostic

 

[RainmanTime]

So you have done nothing but quoted Titor's words back to me, and you apparently do not understand that his words say nothing about divergence that is in any way scientific, much less does he quantify the metric. So you have done exactly zero towards what I asked you to do. Try again?

RMT

 

[TempusMutantur]

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

 

[RainmanTime]

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

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

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

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

Put another way, here is the formula for percentage:

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

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

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

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

Make sense?
RMT

 

[RainmanTime]

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

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

 

[TempusMutantur]

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

 

[RainmanTime]

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

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

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

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

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

RMT