Titor's Collapse Still Nowhere In Sight

RainmanTime

Super Moderator
Titor\'s Collapse Still Nowhere In Sight

Even after Katrina, Rita, and Wilma, economy still showing strength.

http://money.cnn.com/2005/10/28/markets/markets_newyork/index.htm?cnn=yes

All indicators that might be related to "collapse of Western stability" and/or a US Civil War are still saying Titor was BS. And that's the market talking, not me!


RMT
 
Re: Titor\'s Collapse Still Nowhere In Sight

So you don't think the CIA leak scandal, the DeLay Scandal, the Iraq Scandal, the Oil markup scandal, The Patriot Act Atrocity, the recent "Marshall Law in case of a disaster" thing, the FEMA scandal and God knows what other scandals that haven't reared their ugly head yet will lead to anything down the road? You don't think our President patently and consistently lying to the American public and the world will have any repercussions?
 
Re: Titor\'s Collapse Still Nowhere In Sight

I'm with jmpet on this one, you certainly can't say that it is nowhere in sight, maybe 6 months to a year late, but to say with any certainty is foolhardy at the least.
 
Re: Titor\'s Collapse Still Nowhere In Sight

If, repeat if, something happens that causes the collapse of western stability, there will be no doubt.

Nothing yet on the radar screen.

I with RMT on this one. Hey, that's gotta be a first! /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
 
Re: Titor\'s Collapse Still Nowhere In Sight

So you don't think the CIA leak scandal, the DeLay Scandal, the Iraq Scandal, the Oil markup scandal, The Patriot Act Atrocity, the recent "Marshall Law in case of a disaster" thing, the FEMA scandal and God knows what other scandals that haven't reared their ugly head yet will lead to anything down the road? You don't think our President patently and consistently lying to the American public and the world will have any repercussions?

Once again we see you wishing to put words in my mouth. I never claimed any of the silly things you state above. It is a fact that there is no civil war even close to breaking out here in the USA, as we finish up the month of October 2005. You have no choice but to agree with this, because it is true. Tonight, my nation is at peace with itself.

That already makes Titor wrong, because of what he predicted would have happened by the year 2004. And it just didn't happen. I'll even be more happy about the times we live in if my prediction for a large SoCal earthquake does not come true this year! /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Based on the thoughts expressed in the quote above, you seem to want to predict gloom and doom is on its way. I simply point out the facts of the day, not try to say what will happen in the future. I recall that MEM had an interpretation for gloom and doom (possible) back in April. It didn't happen. I simply pointed out that it didn't happen. End of story. I just do the same thing when it comes to the record for Boomer. Point out when what he said would happen does not happen.

What's wrong with that?
RMT
 
Re: Titor\'s Collapse Still Nowhere In Sight

I with RMT on this one. Hey, that's gotta be a first!
I agree, it probably is a first! But I also get the feeling you don't think my earthquake work is total BS. And even though I questioned your April thoughts for YS, I believe I have agreed that it is an area under pressure, and a place to watch for coming events. I don't think you're crazy for thinking something is gonna happen there sometime fairly soon. In fact, I agree with you. But I just think we will first see some action on the Pacific Plate areas of California, Oregon, Washington first before something happens in the Yellowstone Caldera area.

RMT
 
Re: Titor\'s Collapse Still Nowhere In Sight

Rainman,

So you don't think the CIA leak scandal, the DeLay Scandal, the Iraq Scandal, the Oil markup scandal, The Patriot Act Atrocity, the recent "Marshall Law in case of a disaster" thing, the FEMA scandal ...ad nauseum

I agree with your reply to the above. I've said many times that Titor didn't predict that "Western Civilization Was Troubled" or that "Western Civilization Has Problems". He said that Western Civilization collapsed during 2005.

Rome collapsed, Nazi Germany collapsed, the Soviet Union collapsed...there is no secret about what the collapse of society means.

All the post referenced above really does is to point out and more clearly identify Boomer's target audience for the Titor Saga. He had a specific segment of U.S. society in mind and then he targeted his message to them (almost like a cookie targeting advertisement).

And the real laugher is that Boomer is a Republican. He just played the part of a Maoist-Libertarian-Militiaman because that is what his target audience best identifies with.

 
Re: Titor\'s Collapse Still Nowhere In Sight

Titor said Western Stability (note, not civilisation) collapsed. To me, the west is less stable than it was twelve months ago.
 
Re: Titor\'s Collapse Still Nowhere In Sight

Cryo,

As I said, Titor didn't say that the West would "have problems" or "have troubles." It collapses. Western stability thus Western Civilization collapses, according to Titor, in 2005 and is preceded in the Fall of 2004 by the early Weekly Wacky Waco Incidents. We now have only 25 months until 2008 by which time the incidents are a weekly occurence. So far - zero incidents.

That you believe that today Western Stability is somehow less stable than some undefined "time before" is irrelevent. You don't believe that it has collapsed...or you would have stated it in so many words before I had a chance to respond to how you actually stated it.
 
Re: Titor\'s Collapse Still Nowhere In Sight

Darby said, I agree with your reply to the above. I've said many times that Titor didn't predict that "Western Civilization Was Troubled" or that "Western Civilization Has Problems". He said that Western Civilization collapsed during 2005.
Rome collapsed, Nazi Germany collapsed, the Soviet Union collapsed...there is no secret about what the collapse of society means.
All the post referenced above really does is to point out and more clearly identify Boomer's target audience for the Titor Saga. He had a specific segment of U.S. society in mind and then he targeted his message to them (almost like a cookie targeting advertisement).

Creedo interjects, Buh Darby, didn't it take those plane an hour and a half to reach their targets?

Someone was sitting asleep at the switch that day.

Don't that strike you as kind-of funny?
 
Measures of Stability

Hi Cryo,
Titor said Western Stability (note, not civilisation) collapsed. To me, the west is less stable than it was twelve months ago.
I agree he used the term stability, not civilization. And I like to talk about stability and how we measure it, especially given that my profession as a control system engineer focuses on control system stability, and how one measures it.

So what sort of measure do you use to make your assessment that the west is "less stable" than it was twelve months ago? We ought to be able to quantify these measurements and plot them against (ahem...) Time to assess their stability numerically. At least that is how we do it in control systems. We measure stability as time and frequency domain oscillatory response. Maybe we could do a little stability analysis with whatever parameter you are using to conclude that western stability has eroded?

We could even come up with a measure of the west's stability margin, just like we do with other time-varying systems. This could be a really neat technical investigation! /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
RMT
 
Re: Titor\'s Collapse Still Nowhere In Sight

>>Once again we see you wishing to put words in my mouth. I never claimed any of the silly things you state above. It is a fact that there is no civil war even close to breaking out here in the USA, as we finish up the month of October 2005. You have no choice but to agree with this, because it is true. Tonight, my nation is at peace with itself.<<

Yeah, you're right. October is almost over. What about this other prediction:

>"As best I can tell, the window for a large quake will open on or around Sunday SEP 4th and will close sometime around Halloween (Monday 31 OCT). Remember the World Series quake in San Francisco?"< RainmanTime, 8/31/05

Guess we'll know in the next 24 hours, right Nostradamus?

>Based on the thoughts expressed in the quote above, you seem to want to predict gloom and doom is on its way.<

I wasn't the one predicting earthquakes, then backing my claims up with bad logic like:

>The first element of my prediction is based on the activity at other points around the "ring of fire" that would infer increased stresses on our side of the Pacific plate. The second element of my prediction is based on a pet theory of additive thermal stresses induced at the plate interfaces due to both daily solar heating, as well as the transit of the sun between the two tropic lines of delineation< 5/16/05

>we've got a lot of stress in the central valley, mostly due to the fact that we had some events north and south of this in the spring/summer window that released stress in those areas. However, we have not had any significant shakers in the Parkfield/Coalinga area. That means there is existing stress that has built up in that area, and it will therefore be subject to the biggest stress release events as the thermal gradients take over as we move into the autumn.< RainmanTime, 8/31/05

>Just as my model had shown and I had predicted... the fault line is starting to "wake up" due to stresses induced by the magnitudes of thermal rates of change in the earth's crust.< 9/23/05

>Looking at the activity over the past week, things have really been bubbling, shaking, and stirring.< 10/20/05

>Based on all of this, I am calling for a magnitude of no less than 6.3 during the above time window and within the coverage region. To put my own, personal, gut instinct into this prediction, I still believe we are due for something greater than 7.0 this year. So that ought to sufficiently bound the quake I am expecting... however, I am not limiting it to 7.0, for as we know we are due for a much larger quake than this along the San Andreas.< 8/31/05

So if we have a 7.0 within your time window, you were right.
If it happens after your window, you were still right
If it doesn't happen this year, it's only building up for a larger earthquake so when that hits, in only proves you were right.
If a small earthquake hits, that means you were right.
And if no earthquake hits at all, you were still right because deep earth fissures are building up more stress, so the next time an earthquake hits, whenever that is, it only proves you were right.

So what do all of these have in common besides you being right regardless of the outcome? How about the inherent fact that California is on a faultline?

And you seemingly ignored my comment in the same forum regarding the Tsunami, which I feel has more to do with recent earthquakes than whatever else you're spewing.

Now let's use RainmanTime Logic:

>That already makes Titor wrong, because of what he predicted would have happened by the year 2004. And it just didn't happen. I'll even be more happy about the times we live in if my prediction for a large SoCal earthquake does not come true this year! <

So if California does not have a 7.0 within the next 24 hours, you were wrong all along.

I have another question too:

>history has NEVER shown that we advance by a wholesale dumping of past theories that were correct within their domain (i.e. Newton and F=ma). Rather, we BUILD on that past knowledge by further refinements.<

Really? Wasn't it a scientific fact that the Earth was the center of the universe for at least 1500 years? For that matter, isn't the whole of science altogether provisional in nature, based on the very principle that "facts are facts until better facts come along that replace it"? If nothing else, science is always changing and being rewritten. Look at hydrothermal vents.

Here's another one:

>Wilbur and Orville were THE TWO ORIGINAL aerospace engineers. Certainly the historical record shows they did not go to formal university to get a degree, yet the way they did their research (they developed the techniques of wind tunnel testing) was engineering-in-practice.<

DaVinci was the original aerospace engineer. His models worked, people have flown in his flying machines. His only problem was composities weren't yet invented.

>I simply point out the facts of the day, not try to say what will happen in the future. I recall that MEM had an interpretation for gloom and doom (possible) back in April. It didn't happen. I simply pointed out that it didn't happen. End of story.<

Actually it'll be "end of story" tomorrow, October 31st, provided California is still here.

>I just do the same thing when it comes to the record for Boomer. Point out when what he said would happen does not happen. What's wrong with that?<

As long as we can hold you to the same rules you hold others to there's no problem.
 
Re: Titor\'s Collapse Still Nowhere In Sight

My, my but we are a bitter person, eh Ren?

There is a major difference between my predictions and those of "John Titor" - I don't run away leaving people to wonder what I meant. AND... because I won't run away, I will be more than happy to admit I was wrong come Tuesday. That is the only responsible, scientific thing to do.

>history has NEVER shown that we advance by a wholesale dumping of past theories that were correct within their domain (i.e. Newton and F=ma). Rather, we BUILD on that past knowledge by further refinements.<
Really? Wasn't it a scientific fact that the Earth was the center of the universe for at least 1500 years?
No, it was not a "scientific fact". It was an assumption that originated within religious thought which did not match observations. Eventually, scientists of the day discarded this assumption because they had a real mathematical theory that supported the observations. The earth-centered view of the universe was NOT correct within its domain, and had no mathematical theory that could back it up.

As long as we can hold you to the same rules you hold others to there's no problem.
I use the rules of science and math. And contrary to the way you wish to paint me, Ren, I DO admit when I am wrong.

Now...I could spend a lot of time tearing apart some of the ideas in your posts, and show you precisely where they are wrong. I even thought about pointing out some of your vague thoughts about pi, and how several of them are incorrect. But then I would be sinking to your level, and it is not my sole purpose just to show all the different ways you are wrong, or where your thinking is outside of accepted (i.e. validated) science.

But I would agree with timer on one prescription for your continued education about science and math:

timer: and too, BUY a university physics book, you need to read it for us to make further progress in understanding the mysteries of time and quantum physics

You are an intelligent person, no doubt about that. But think of how much more effective your intelligence would be if you learned and applied the maths that define our current understanding of the universe.

If you wish to continue having "flame wars" (who started the flaming in this thread? Hmmm?) I can continue to tear you apart... but why? What is productive about that?
RMT
 
Re: Titor\'s Collapse Still Nowhere In Sight

>There is a major difference between my predictions and those of "John Titor" - I don't run away leaving people to wonder w hat I meant. AND... because I won't run away, I will be more than happy to admit I was wrong come Tuesday. That is the only responsible, scientific thing to do.<

Here's the part you don't understand and may not be capable of understanding. The difference between you and most other people is that most other people admit it when they're wrong and move on with it, you just dig your hole deeper and deeper. Additionally, when someone is proven to be wrong you cling to that- you obsess on it, you mention it every chance you can, in lieu of advancing your own proof. It's a pot-shot you never stop using against them; it's a superior intellectual perspective you percieve yourself over them.

>No, it was not a "scientific fact". It was an assumption that originated within religious thought which did not match observations.<

Okay. Then you're argument is not with me, it's with Hawking "Occasionally perceived as a monolithic, unchanging entity, known science is ever and always provisional (i.e., always changing). In other words, the apparently established results of today are only conditionally accepted by the scientific community at large while it diligently works toward enhancing and extending the accumulated knowledge upon which contemporary science is based." I can also cite a dozen other quotes from well-known scientists if that furthers my point.

>Now...I could spend a lot of time tearing apart some of the ideas in your posts, and show you precisely where they are wrong. I even thought about pointing out some of your vague thoughts about pi, and how several of them are incorrect. But then I would be sinking to your level, and it is not my sole purpose just to show all the different ways you are wrong, or where your thinking is outside of accepted (i.e. validated) science.<

You "sank to my level" when you first attacked my fourth post; you "sink to that level" anytime anyone has anything to say on these boards that you personally do not agree with, facts or not.

>You are an intelligent person, no doubt about that. But think of how much more effective your intelligence would be if you learned and applied the maths that define our current understanding of the universe.<

Thank you.

Not really- since we can never know everything, we should learn enough to where we can apply logic and get tangable results from it. This is also known as "science".

>If you wish to continue having "flame wars" (who started the flaming in this thread? Hmmm?) I can continue to tear you apart... but why? What is productive about that?<

Admittedly I am a bit punchy today as I had rough last night I do not want to continue. So please stop ripping everyone apart and please stop inserting your "intellectual vanity" over others. You're smart, but you're not that smart. I have already said "I am willing to admit I am wrong and in that case I will admit it", I have yet to see anything along those lines from you. As to who started this thread, it was you.
 
Re: Titor\'s Collapse Still Nowhere In Sight

DaVinci was the original aerospace engineer. His models worked, people have flown in his flying machines. His only problem was composities weren't yet invented.
Wrong. Absolutely, positively, without question, you are WRONG. All that remains now is for you to admit it. If you want to get into a battle of knowledge about aerodynamics with me, I'm all for it. Just beware of the ground you are treading if you are not an expert in this area... because I am!

Composites was not DaVinci's "only problem". Do I need to point out that the Wright Flyer was built without composites, as were a great many airplanes prior to the advent of composites? While DaVinci's designs are certainly held up as some of the first exhaustive research into flight, he had not yet quantified all the parameters that would make it a known science. Moreover, DaVinci did not achieve powered-flight, whereas the Wrights did.

One of the primary "problems" that DaVinci had was that he was about 200 years earlier than the person who would first quantify the major physical knowledge that could lead to an understanding of aerodynamics... that would be one Daniel Bernoulli, and his quanitification is what we today call dynamic pressure. The Wrights had the benefit of understanding how dynamic pressure (the pressure which creates aerodynamic forces) results from the difference between total pressure and static pressure from a body moving through a fluid. The Wrights were also the first to solve the lateral control problem with their "wing warping" which lead to the aileron.

I could go on... but in the spirit of the flame war that you started in this thread, I think I have sufficiently proven your above statement WRONG.
And oh yes, if you think DaVinci was the first person to fly, I've got news for you there too.... You are WRONG about that too!

RMT
 
Re: Titor\'s Collapse Still Nowhere In Sight

>No, it was not a "scientific fact". It was an assumption that originated within religious thought which did not match observations.<

Okay. Then you're argument is not with me, it's with Hawking "Occasionally perceived as a monolithic, unchanging entity, known science is ever and always provisional (i.e., always changing). In other words, the apparently established results of today are only conditionally accepted by the scientific community at large while it diligently works toward enhancing and extending the accumulated knowledge upon which contemporary science is based." I can also cite a dozen other quotes from well-known scientists if that furthers my point.
And now, you are aruging something other than my point... probably so you won't have to admit you are wrong. I did not disagree with you that science always changes, because I agree. I merely pointed out that you were wrong in stating that the earth-centered universe was a scientific fact.

Not really- since we can never know everything
So is that your excuse for not having to take time to learn the details of existing science?

As to who started this thread, it was you.
Once again, we see that you would rather try to change the point, so you don't have to admit you are wrong. I agree that I started this thread. But that is not what I was saying. I was pointing out who turned this into a flame war... and that was most certainly you.

But of course, you would not want to admit being wrong, especially not to me. Funny thing, since that is what you accuse me of. Psychologists have a term for that trait: Projection.

FWIW, I see your kind all the time. I see young kids show up as freshmen in my courses, thinking they know it all... like you... and while they are intelligent, they think they don't need to learn the basics of science and engineering that will turn them into successful engineers. Those types of students almost always wash-out of the program, because they can't admit that maybe there is some concept about which they don't yet know all the scientific details.

Feel free to keep up the flame war you started. I can go on as long as you can. But let's not get confused about who it is that starts these flame wars.
RMT
 
Re: Titor\'s Collapse Still Nowhere In Sight

Sorry to interupt. But I have a question.

Do you guys have a life? I mean, you can't find anything better to do than argue on-line with a stranger?

Ding, ding. There's the bell. Back to the fight.
 
Re: Titor\'s Collapse Still Nowhere In Sight

>Wrong. Absolutely, positively, without question, you are WRONG. All that remains now is for you to admit it. If you want to get into a battle of knowledge about aerodynamics with me, I'm all for it. Just beware of the ground you are treading if you are not an expert in this area... because I am!<

Here ya go, expert:
http://www.angelfire.com/indie/anna_jones1/davinci.html

And this is from Wikipedia:
"Fascinated by the phenomenon of flight, Leonardo produced detailed studies of the flight of birds, and plans for several flying machines, including a helicopter powered by four men (which would not have worked since the body of the craft would have rotated) and a light hang-glider which could have flown. On January 3, 1496 he unsuccessfully tested a flying machine he had constructed. PBS aired a special about the building and testing of a glider based on Da Vinci's design. The glider was a resounding success."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonardo_da_Vinci

Maybe I'll buy you one this Christmas
http://www.acrossthepond.net/daVinci.htm
 
Re: Titor\'s Collapse Still Nowhere In Sight

Here ya go, expert:
That's all you've got? Since you obviously have a fetish for trying to prove me wrong, what, pray tell, do you think you are proving me wrong on with this link? I was merely asking YOU to admit YOU were wrong about saying
jmpet: His only problem was composities weren't yet invented.
And oh yes... you were wrong about that, but I know you won't admit it. And while I am not as obsessed as you with painting me wrong, I would even claim that this statement of yours is certainly debatable on several points:
jmpet: DaVinci was the original aerospace engineer.
That really depends on how one classifies what it is to be an aerospace engineer. While DaVinci was certainly a genius, and while he did do some of the first scientific inquiry into flight, he most certainly did not define the science of aerodynamics which could be put into practice reliably, and with continuous powered flight. He needed engines and Bernoulli's discovery in order to do that... and the Wrights had the benefit of these. So you see, once again, you are trying to prove me wrong on something I didn't say. I did NOT claim anywhere that DaVinci wasn't a genius.

And now how about you take a look at the words I have bolded in the quote you supplied:
"Fascinated by the phenomenon of flight, Leonardo produced detailed studies of the flight of birds, and plans for several flying machines, including a helicopter powered by four men ( which would not have worked since the body of the craft would have rotated) and a light hang-glider which could have flown. On January 3, 1496 he unsuccessfully tested a flying machine he had constructed. PBS aired a special about the building and testing of a glider based on Da Vinci's design. The glider was a resounding success."
And just to make sure you understand that last part: The PBS special was not about a DaVinci success... it was about people from our day, building a glider "based on" DaVinci's design. I saw that same special, and the biggest thing that DaVinci "missed" related to lateral damping. The folks in the PBS special found out they had to make a larger vertical fin than what DaVinci had specified, this to provide natural aerodynamic damping of the glider's spiral response.

So yes...I AM an expert in aerodynamics. And as a person who has worked over 20 years in this business, I would say that while DaVinci was certainly a genius scientist, he clearly did not quantify the parameters of flight in such a way that you typically think of engineering putting science into practice. And that is why the Wright Brothers earned this distinction.

But back to you and your obsession... still don't feel you have to admit you were wrong on any of the above?
I have already said "I am willing to admit I am wrong and in that case I will admit it", I have yet to see anything along those lines from you.
It's quite possible that this is only because you are closing your eyes... unwilling to admit when you were wrong.

But I'll keep playing the game as long as you want to play it. How about a new twist to the game? How about you try falsifying, or proving wrong, some of my maths that you asked for? You seem to want to nitpick on things (like your new signature line, and how it is taken out of the context it was meant to be in). Why not go for greatness and prove that my theoretical approach to Massive SpaceTime is scientifically incorrect? That would be much more helpful to the discussion than you pointless sniping! /ttiforum/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

RMT
 
Re: Titor\'s Collapse Still Nowhere In Sight

Do you guys have a life? I mean, you can't find anything better to do than argue on-line with a stranger?
I'm working on a new hobby, since it looks like my attempts at being an amateur earthquake predictor are just about over! /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif But I do have a fetish of my own... when people get so obsessed with coming after me, just because I point out facts where Titor was wrong... it's fun for me!

RMT
 
Back
Top