Titor question?

[Darby]

Newbie,

It's not proof he's a fraud

I doubt that you'll ever see me go so far as to use the term "fraud" relative to Boomer/Titor.

Fraud is a very strong term and goes beyond simply implying a criminal act. Fraud is a criminal act. Fraud, in general, is a scheme that uses a "trick or device" to intice someone to voluntarily give up something of value in return for a service or item of "equal" value...and the trickster neither follows through nor did (s)he ever plan to follow through.

Boomer didn't commit a criminal act even if his story is proven to be untrue.

An interesting sci-fi story, yes. A crime, no. No one has been tricked into giving up something of value based on an empty promise of value in return.

 

[RainmanTime]

So who was Rainman back then? I remember when the current RMT joined these boards...long after JT left.

Now there is a little detective work for you! /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif I had originally found this board before registration was required to post. I then registered under another handle, some of which I used to chime in on the Titor affair. It was not until late 2002 that I created my current persona. When I signed-in as RainmanTime I decided that there is no reason for people to not know the real me, and to be able to track me down and research my history.

So can you figure out who I was posting as during the Time of Titor? One hint would be that I was just as critical of Titor's story as I am now.

RMT

 

[Hercules]

The key word here is NEXT WAR. Not the previous war.

Just recently I saw a thread at Anomalies which claims Titor was talking about the events in the PAST. His predictions were tied up with events in the past and even some evidence were produced(something relating to dates, I dont remember exactly)

 

[IgnorantSentient]

I couldn't believe that, it would be too much of a lucky guess about what did happen, people wouldn't have believed him if a year later nothing he said didn't happen.

I still stand by my "Bush said he'd kill anyone who pissed of his dad when he was elected" thoughts. And think, what reason would we have to go into Iraq other than... WMD. And what were the real chances that even if they were there, they wouldn't be for long.

If I had thought for about an hour or so about it, I would have come to the same conclusion.

 

[MEM]

Most of the posters at Anomolies are militant anti-titor. You'll get no honest intellectual titor discussion there.

 

[RainmanTime]

Most of the posters at Anomolies are militant anti-titor. You'll get no honest intellectual titor discussion there.

Ha. Amusing your use of "militant", especially given that the person/people behind Titor clearly wanted a war (military action), and those who are "anti-Titor" are either presenting the reality of why a civil war is not likely, or at least expressing "anti-war" sentiments.

Ha. Ha ha. You really crack me up there with that kind of lame logic, MEM. And you still have yet to divulge why you have such a hard-on for Darby. Perhaps just jealousy because his IQ is a bit higher than yours? /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

RMT

 

[Hercules]

those who are "anti-Titor" are either presenting the reality of why a civil war is not likely, or at least expressing "anti-war" sentiments.

I thought this is a science forum. Where does "sentiments" come into science and "intellectual analysis"?

Again RMT, I am also eager to hear at least ONE "fair" and "scientific" debunking of Titor's TT concepts.

("Fair" in the sense you cannot imply your method(single-worldline theory) of TT to debunk his method.)

 

[Einstein]

Again RMT, I am also eager to hear at lest ONE "fair" and "scientific" debunking of Titor's TT concepts.

I'll take a stab at that. The laser picture. Looks cool. I've even debated on both sides with this particular Titor concept. But from a pure science standpoint the occupants in the vehicle appear to be unaffected by the intense gravity field outside the vehicle. The light beam clearly shows it is being bent outside the window. That gravity field outside the vehicle would have to be near black hole intensity to accomplish that amount of distortion. Gravity fields follow the 1/r^2 rule as far as distance from the source goes. Yet there is no light bending inside the vehicle. The 1/r^2 rule seems to have been violated. That is a no no! Not possible. No mathematics for it either. There never will be mathematics for it because it is impossible. A manmade law can be broken, but a law of nature is absolute. Only mother nature can break her own laws. And there are no physical observations in the universe to show or even suggest that the 1/r^2 rule can be violated. So from a pure science standpoint the laser picture is only for the gullible. That one picture debunks the whole story if you have any understanding of the laws of physics. I feel pretty confident in stating that if you still think this is possible or will become possible in the future, then obviously to me you are not very well educated in science and mathematics. So without the education behind you, you can't really make a qualified statement about the laser picture. So go ahead someone. Prove me wrong.

 

[CryoLemon]

If not 2005, Titor is BS.

But he also said that it would become obvious to everyone by 2008, which makes the prediction even more vague, although I would be less inclined to believe in him if nothing major happens this year, but as I have said previously (both using this username and Cryomaniac) Titor could be BS, but that doesn't mean a civil war can't happen, if titor was BS and there is a civil war it would be the ultimate Alains Morrisette irony /ttiforum/images/graemlins/tongue.gif (although if there is a civil war everyone will assume Titor wasn't BS, so that kind of urinates on my pile of burning rubbish doesn't it)

 

[Hercules]

But from a pure science standpoint the occupants in the vehicle appear to be unaffected by the intense gravity field outside the vehicle. The light beam clearly shows it is being bent outside the window.

LOCALIZED KERR FIELD = TIPLER SINUSOID
By using two microsingularites in close proximity to each other, it is possible to create, manipulate and alter the Kerr fields to create a Tipler gravity sinusoid. This field can be adjusted, rotated and moved in order to simulate the movement of mass through a donut-shaped singularity and into an alternate world line. Thus, safe time travel.

The Singularity is DONUT shaped.

The 1/r^2 rule seems to have been violated. That is a no no! Not possible. No mathematics for it either. There never will be mathematics for it because it is impossible.

There are differences when you consider a circle (I think the “r” refers to radius). Whereas in a Donut, if you take a “top-view” you can say it has two radius r1- radius of the outer circle and r2-radius of the inner circle.

It is a donut, and in the isometric view, you can see a “hole” passing through the centre. This hole is the safe pathway through which one can travel to the past of an alternate Worldline.

I feel pretty confident in stating that if you still think this is possible or will become possible in the future, then obviously to me you are not very well educated in science and mathematics.

http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050711/pf/050711-4_pf.html

 

[Hercules]

But he also said that it would become obvious to everyone by 2008, which makes the prediction even more vague,

No. It's 2005. He used it quite a lot of times. I don't see that 2008 quote has anything to do with the AMERICAN civil war he predicted.

 

[RainmanTime]

Herc,

I thought this is a science forum. Where does "sentiments" come into science and "intellectual analysis"?

If you want science, then I would expect you to strictly adhere to science in your posts where you seem to defend Titor's ramblings. This includes, especially, the way you threw our non-scientific "responses" to Einstein's issue with regard to "gravity distortion" of ONLY the light beam in the photo.

Again RMT, I am also eager to hear at least ONE "fair" and "scientific" debunking of Titor's TT concepts.

This is unscientific, my friend. In fact, the entire pasttime of "debunking" is unscientific for the simple fact that in science, the standard says that those making wild claims are the ones burdened with showing proof. And proof entails more than fancy words which sound like they are scientific evidence (which they are not).

More to come.
RMT

 

[Hercules]

This includes, especially, the way you threw our non-scientific "responses" to Einstein's issue with regard to "gravity distortion" of ONLY the light beam in the photo.

Einstein’s issue:
But from a pure science standpoint the occupants in the vehicle appear to be unaffected by the intense gravity field outside the vehicle.

My answer:

Donut Shaped Singularity.

I find it simple.

I knew you’d not accept it.

Very well. You are ALWAYS right.
/ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

[Hercules]

in science, the standard says that those making wild claims are the ones burdened with showing proof. And proof entails more than fancy words which sound like they are scientific evidence (which they are not).

You are right.

But I like to know WHAT proof you expect FROM John Titor IF he was real?

I did not say I’ll be defending his statements. I said if you can point out a flaw, I will heed it and see if it can prove JT is a fake TT. Unfortunately I cannot find anything like that in his story.

The ONLY FLAW could be 31st DEC 2005, where you celebrate Titor is a BS party the next day. (I am not defending it)

 

[RainmanTime]

Herc,

My answer:
Donut Shaped Singularity.
I find it simple.
I knew you’d not accept it.

The reason I do not accept it is because it is not a scientific answer. As we move forward from this point, I want you to remember that it was you that brought up the issue of being scientific in our analysis. I am merely seeking to hold you to that same standard that you invoked. When you provide such a simplistic answer as above, you are not laying the scientific foundation for why this should be a real answer to Einstein's issue. You are throwing something out, hoping for it to stick. And with someone who has less scientific experience, it might stick. But not with me.

Let me take Einstein's issue a little further, to help you understand how you will have a much more difficult task to address that issue than simply stating "donut shaped singularity". Einstein wanted to know why the occupants were not affected by the gravity field that is supposedly bending the light beam. I would point out something more basic than this: Why is there NO distortion of ANY of the surrounding light in the picture? Why is it the light beam and ONLY the light beam from the laser pointer that is being affected by the supposed gravity field? Simple optics would tell you that if light coming from the laser beam is being affected, then ALL light beams in the visual scene would undergo a similar distortion. In other words, you should see a large distortion of the light that represents the background of the corvette passenger compartment. Yet, you see no such distortion.

Please, let's be scientific about this, seeing as how you are the one who invoked a strict scientific view! /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

You are ALWAYS right.

If that is how you wish to view my scientific challenges to your arguments, then that is your prerogative. For me, it is not about being "right", but rather about being scientifically accurate in any analysis. Sorry, but being an engineer and a professor, I have an annoying tendency to always want to be technically and scientifically accurate in such analysis. I know you don't like it, but it serves me (and perhaps other readers) quite well.

RMT

 

[Hercules]

Let me take Einstein's issue a little further, to help you understand how you will have a much more difficult task to address that issue than simply stating "donut shaped singularity". Einstein wanted to know why the occupants were not affected by the gravity field that is supposedly bending the light beam.

That IS where I didn't make a quote, I thought I'd make it later in the discussion. That is very simple. This question is already answered. I think you and Einstein never read it, or even if you have read it, it didn't match YOUR standard of science:

Fortunately, most black holes are not static. They spin. Spinning black holes are often referred to as Kerr black holes. A Kerr black hole has two interesting properties. One, they have two event horizons and two, the singularity is not a point, it looks more like a donut. These odd properties also have a pronounced affect on the black hole’s gravity. There are vectors where you can approach the singularity without being crushed by gravity.

YOU will ask me to PROVE it. Unfortunately I cannot do that. But here is what he said:

It is actually quite dangerous to get too close to a distortion unit as it enters or leaves a world line.

Here I assume "too close" means about 3 feet or so. And that would answer Einstein's question how the human being is able to be safe cuz the singularity is a "special" donut shaped one.

Simple optics would tell you that if light coming from the laser beam is being affected, then ALL light beams in the visual scene would undergo a similar distortion. In other words, you should see a large distortion of the light that represents the background of the corvette passenger compartment. Yet, you see no such distortion.

I dont know about it, but what I learnt about LASER is that it is monochromatic and coherent and its directionality is very high which are properties which normal light do not posess. I dont understand why you compare laser with ordinary light.

I have an annoying tendency to always want to be technically and scientifically accurate in such analysis. I know you don't like it, but it serves me (and perhaps other readers) quite well.

OK I am also an engineer and Electrical Engineering is my major subject. But I have just passed out and I am not as experienced as you.

Not that I dont like it. I see that you don't heed to what Titor wrote about the issues saying there is no PROOF. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

[RainmanTime]

Herc,

I did not say I’ll be defending his statements. I said if you can point out a flaw, I will heed it and see if it can prove JT is a fake TT. Unfortunately I cannot find anything like that in his story.

Is it possible that the reason you cannot find a flaw is more due to your limited understanding of a topic, rather than the Titor story's accuracy or even its possibility of being true? In case you do not understand what I am getting at, let me give you a specific example:

I am not a chemist. I know little to nothing about chemistry. The Perfect Gas Law is about as far as I go in my field. This leaves me susceptible to someone who might put together a story about chemsitry that sounds nice, but could be totally bogus. Where we seem to differ is that I would never accept what this person says as truth simply because I (with my limited knowledge on the subject) could not find a flaw with it. However, you assume things (you use this very word in many of your posts). Specifically, it seems you start off by assuming that the things told in the Titor story are, or could be, correct. If you are an engineering student, then I would hope one of your instructors told you the little story about why assuming is dangerous in science and engineering: Because it makes an ASS out of U and ME.

To put it more bluntly: I do not think you understand any of the intricate details of the theory of a donut shaped singularity. You are assuming that it is a valid story, and it sounds OK to you. And then you leave it at this, because you cannot explain it any further. This, my friend, is where you err. And yes, this is where it APPEARS that you are very eager to validate Titor's story. But by making assumptions such as you have that the "donut shaped singularity" sounds like a reasonable explanation, you are fooling yourself.

But I like to know WHAT proof you expect FROM John Titor IF he was real?

As a start, I think some simple field equations that back up his claims would be good. But here we will be encountered by several "convenient" excuses that are built-into the fabric of his story. You choose which excuse you will allow Titor to get off the hook:

1) He is a historian, not a scientist. (And yet, he apparantly knows enough about the science to sound convincing to someone like you who will assume things. Works well for his story, dontcha think?)
2) He does not want to corrupt this worldline with this detailed scientific knowledge. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/confused.gif All I can do is laugh this one off. It is the "perfect alibi".

The ONLY FLAW could be 31st DEC 2005

Correction: The ONLY FLAW THAT YOU COULD IDENTIFY. Others of us have identified other flaws, but they are flaws that YOU refuse to accept, and instead you try to defeat the flaws we have found with more of the bogus Titor story, with some of your own assumptions added to the mix. That is SO unscientific as to be frightening! :eek: Do you understand why?

Again I remind you: YOU are the one who wants to be rigorously scientific here. I am only holding you to YOUR standard!

RMT

 

[RainmanTime]

OK, let's dig in a little bit deeper...scientifically!

This question is already answered. I think you and Einstein never read it, or even if you have read it, it didn't match YOUR standard of science:

Not MY standard of science, but rather THE standard of science!

One, they have two event horizons and two, the singularity is not a point, it looks more like a donut. These odd properties also have a pronounced affect on the black hole’s gravity. There are vectors where you can approach the singularity without being crushed by gravity.

Here is where I would want to see field equations. Short of that, a simple picture to help visualize the fields and relative field strength would go a much longer way towards a SCIENTIFIC substantiation of these words. Unfortunately, these words do not convey ANYTHING with respect to the science they claim to describe.

YOU will ask me to PROVE it. Unfortunately I cannot do that.

First, I would expect HIM (Titor) to prove it, not you. Second, your admission that you cannot prove it speaks to my comments in my last post. If you cannot prove it, then this tells me your knowledge of the SCIENCE of such things is limited. And if that is the case, how can you possibly make any kind of case for these words from "Titor" being anywhere close to scientifically valid? I keep pointing this out as your error, and you never address it: When myself (among others) point to SCIENTIFIC refutations inherent in Titor's story (such as the light distortion issue we are talking about with his laser photograph) you use elements of Titor's story to try to indicate that the point we are making is not valid. You simply cannot do that and expect to be taken seriously from a scientific standpoint. Rather, you would have to show SCIENTIFICALLY how the lack of other light in the photo being distorted could occur, and you would have to show this scientifically SEPARATE from the unverified words used in the Titor story.

Here I assume "too close" means about 3 feet or so.

There's that word: ASSUME. And what would you state as the SCIENTIFIC reasons for you to assume 3 feet? Why not more like the 10 inches you had stated in your initial assumption when I read this reply from you? You are making my point for me here, Herc. Without knowing the SCIENCE behind the words that Titor has fed you, you cannot, scientifically speaking, make ANY assumption as to what this statement of his means!

And that would answer Einstein's question how the human being is able to be safe cuz the singularity is a "special" donut shaped one.

You may think it answers Einstein's question, but it does no such thing, at least in a scientific manner. And it was you who wanted to stick to hard science, right?

I dont know about it, but what I learnt about LASER is that it is monochromatic and coherent and its directionality is very high which are properties which normal light do not posess. I dont understand why you compare laser with ordinary light.

Because they are both light, that's why. You need to show me (scientifically) why the coherent properties of laser light would somehow be more subject to gravity than "normal" light. It doesn't add up. If there really is a gravitational field that is bending the laser light, as purported by the story which goes along with the picture, then you should also be able to visualize the effects of that gravity field on ALL the light in the photograph. You would see other images distorted in the same shape as exhibited by the laser beam. I can't for the life of me understand why you do not understand this MAJOR flaw in Titor's story with respect to this photo.

I see that you don't heed to what Titor wrote about the issues saying there is no PROOF.

I heed them alright. But Titor's words are clearly nowhere near scientific proof. They are incomplete in their science, and as such they amount to nothing more than a fictional story.

Again I implore you to invoke science, as you indicated you wished to do. Just in a kidding manner, I would have to give you a "C" for your application of science so far, Herc. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

RMT

 

[IgnorantSentient]

All I wanted to know from Titor was what is going to happen in the last Harry Potter book, if he had told me that, I would have been a firm believer. But alas, world politics can sometimes be easy to predict... 'so no go.'

 

[Einstein]

RMT

I would have to give you a "C" for your application of science so far, Herc.

He quoted Titor as the source of his scientific facts. Are you just being extremely lenient or are you using a bell curve for the grading scale? LOL....