Titor's Collapse Still Nowhere In Sight

[RainmanTime]

Re: Titor\'s Collapse Still Nowhere In Sight

Hi max_wedge,

Regarding variables used by scientists to support theories:

Scientists do this to balance the theories that they have thought up to explain natural events. When their equation doesn't balance, they plug in variables that makes both sides equal.

That is an awfully UNscientific means to explain how scientists derive empirical coefficients. It is not quite as sloppy as you would seem to imply, and it is CERTAINLY not "random".

But beyond this, Titor's self-implicated "worldline divergence" does not correspond to what you describe. He described it as an empircal measure... that means it is based on a real measurement. Yet he did not (could not?) explain precisely what the basis measurement is from which the percentage is formed. Many people here don't understand this point I am making, but those who understand science know it full well. A percentage is not useful unless and until you define the basis for 100% in terms of a physical measurement. When you say the price of gas has gone up 50% in the past week, that is based on the knowledge of what the gas price (actual, not percentage) was last week. There is no escaping this, Titor admitted it was an empirical measurement, and yet he did not define it. Given how important this measurement is to his story, and his machine's working, one cannot blindly accept it without knowing its measurement basis. If you do blindly accept it, then you are not being scientific.

If John Titor was able to suppy conclusive evidence that the theory is correct (for example, demonstrating the use of a time machine), by proving his truthfullness about time travel, it's likely he is telling the truth about the 10% as well.

That's a big "If" and most with a good working knowledge of science would say he did not meet your "if". Does that mean, since he could not and did not supply conclusive evidence, that it is UNLIKELY he was telling the truth about 10%? By your logic, it would seem to be. However, you really can't tell anything. I do have to say, however, that Titor's attempt to provide "proof" with the laser photo was weak... VERY weak... and one must immediately ask why the resolution was so low on THAT particular photo, when he had MUCH better resolution on other, less-fantastic photos? Something to hide?

All I am arguing is that a 10% variance between two parrallel time lines could result in the type of events Titor spoke to occur in one timeline but not the other. I think that's a reasonable supposition. 10% is a big slice of all possible outcomes for all the human choices being played out every day.

Speaking scientifically, it is really NOT a reasonable supposition because of what I explain above. Please try to understand what I am pointing out - You can't make any conclusions about how big 10% is with regard to a physical phenomenon unless you know the physical measure that percentage is based on. And contrary to what you say:

10% is a big slice of all possible outcomes for all the human choices being played out every day.

Titor told us there were INFINITE possible outcomes (another thing I think is BS.... the theory is MANY World Interpretation, NOT INFINITE World Interpretation). So if you are going to assume that his 10% is based on infinite possibilities, this makes a percentage divergence even that much more useless (10% of infinity is still infinity, because infinity cannot be measured).

I'm not trying to insult you, max_wedge... I am just pointing out that you really have no scientific basis to claim that "10% variance is a reasonable supposition". You have a gut feel, but that gut feel is not backed by scientific method. That's all I am saying. Feel free to believe what you wish, but it is not a fault of science when scientific method shows your beliefs are on shaky ground. There is a reasonable amount of BS-smelling entities in Titor's story for a scientist to call a hoax. The sheer lack of real evidence, and inattention to details of the scientific method, are enough to dismiss it.

RMT

 

[MEM]

Re: Titor\'s Collapse Still Nowhere In Sight

John Titor's choice of 10%

Titor never mentioned 10%. Some repeat it often enough that others take it as fact. But it's not.

The first “leg” of my trip was from 2036 to 1975. After two VGL checks, the divergance was estimated at about 2.5% (from my 2036).

Titor

As far as the future goes, your worldline is about 2.5% different than mine. This is a roughly cumulative measurement based on my arrival in 1975. As far as I can tell right now, you are headed toward the same events I would call “my history” in 2036.

Titor

 

[max_wedge]

Re: Titor\'s Collapse Still Nowhere In Sight

Let me make it completely clear: I am not arguing that the John Titor story is true. I am not calling into question any of your statements about other evidence. I am talking about one aspect of the Johnn Titor story, which is the one you started this thread about.

I agree about the photographic evidence. I agree about many other aspects you mention. However while you might think your theories are undeniable facts, in my assessment there is no evidence that "proves" John Titor story a hoax. I believe it is a hoax nevertheless, due to weight of evidence. But my argument here is about timeline divergence, not about the authenticity or otherwise of John Titor or other evidence.

As far as my knowledge goes, I am a science hobbyist only, that is I read popular magazines like Scientific American cover to cover, and books such as steven hawking etc. laugh at me if you like. When I was younger (I'm 38 by the way, not some kid as you seem to think) I was much more active and had more in depth knowledge, but I no longer have the same level of knowledge of current science as I did then.

But despite our knowledge differences, you are only theorising like I am.

That is an awfully UNscientific means to explain how scientists derive empirical coefficients. It is not quite as sloppy as you would seem to imply, and it is CERTAINLY not "random".

I never implied "random", I said apparently random, which infers that it only appears random. Please don't read my words hastily and with pre-judgement, as I think carefully about what I say. It is cetainly NOT random. It is the result of a scientists dilligent analysis of data, BUT theories are not devised from a full knowledge of the facts, otherwise why have a theory? Theories are of necessity educated guesses only. The scientist's innate understanding, gleaned from years of research and study, helps him see the patterns from which a theory can be drawn. But it's still only a guess. It's a good guess with a logical basis, but it has to be tested, and along the way the theory is usually adjusted to fit new facts as they come to light, and eventually the theory gathers enough supporting facts to be verified (or not). It's not a random or unscientific process at all.

I am NOT implying that the process is sloppy and random. I respect and honour the scientific process. I believe in logic and reason. Yet in saying that I also expect you to berate me for having the hide to make that claim (I do feel a little insulted; but it's all in good fun, no offence taken

), although if you read carefully you can see I am logical. Just because I don't necessarily share you opinion about something doesn't make me unreasoned.

There is no escaping this, Titor admitted it was an empirical measurement, and yet he did not define it. Given how important this measurement is to his story, and his machine's working, one cannot blindly accept it without knowing its measurement basis. If you do blindly accept it, then you are not being scientific

You are saying that the story is proven not true because John Titor didn't bother to define what he meant by 10% variance? This implies that John Titor could only exist if he had of bothered to define variance. What if he did exist and just didn't care enough to offer an explanation, or perhaps didn't really understand it himself?

That's a big "If" and most with a good working knowledge of science would say he did not meet your "if". Does that mean, since he could not and did not supply conclusive evidence, that it is UNLIKELY he was telling the truth about 10%? By your logic, it would seem to be

sigh. I never said I thought that he had achieved such a demonstration, I was just making the point that if the story was proven true, it would be reasonable to accept the 10% figure at face value, so you can't really argue that the story isn't true because of a fallacious figure. The figure can only be considered fallacious if you accept the story as a hoax from the outset.

As to way he did not supply evidence - maybe he didn't want to. Not supplying evidence doesn't really disqualify the 10% variance.

Speaking scientifically, it is really NOT a reasonable supposition because of what I explain above. Please try to understand what I am pointing out - You can't make any conclusions about how big 10% is with regard to a physical phenomenon unless you know the physical measure that percentage is based on. And contrary to what you say:

If one where to speculate about a multiple-worlds type of scenario (and I said nothing about infinity, see my rebuttal below) then it would be reasonable to expect that 10% is a large factor of difference between two parallel timelines (see below for MY definition of measurement). But in all honesty rainmantime, neither you nor I have any real scientific facts to back up either our views.

Titor told us there were INFINITE possible outcomes (another thing I think is BS.... the theory is MANY World Interpretation, NOT INFINITE World Interpretation). So if you are going to assume that his 10% is based on infinite possibilities, this makes a percentage divergence even that much more useless (10% of infinity is still infinity, because infinity cannot be measured).

You say "the theory is MANY World Interpretation" yet why should Titor's story need to conform to that theory, which is after all just a theory, and infact a bigger guess than many other unproven theories? The fact that the many worlds theory denies infinite possibilities, or the fact that you think infintie worlds is BS, is opinion (just like my own gut fealing which you derided. BTW my gut fealings are based on my understanding of science, which while apparently not as good as yours is still substantial for a non-scientist).

And to say ten percent of infinity is still infinity? Why don't you refer to you own explanation of a mobius strip? Or perhaps there are infinite possibilities in a bounded 5-D space. Finite assumes a particle substrate, but what if the underlying structure of the universe is infinitely variable within a finite space, like infinitely small points on a finite line?

So the variance could simply be the factor by which one timeline is different to another with respect to the finite space. There may be a limited number of possible scenarios that can branch out backwards and forwards in time and "sideways" from any point in 5-D space (space, time and "one of possible scenarios"), before they bear no significant connection to the originating point. Hence a limited number of possible John Titor like scenarios within a field of infinite potential.

 

[MEM]

Re: Titor\'s Collapse Still Nowhere In Sight

max_wedge,

Your points are all valid. I would add that there is no "scientific" means to prove or disprove what titor wrote. If one looks at it objectively.

It really is pointless to argue with RMT. He has made up his mind that titor is a fake. I can't disagree with his conculsion. But I can disagree with the way he arrived at his conculsion.

Take it from someone who has wasted time trying to point out inconsistencies in RMT's methods used to prove titor a fake, don't waste your time. You'd have better luck attempting to teach a mule to dance.

 

[max_wedge]

Re: Titor\'s Collapse Still Nowhere In Sight

my bad, it was over a year ago I read that stuff /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

I still think it's a high percentage variance. I believe of all the possible scenarios that could branch out from the the year 2000, both many John Titor like, and many peace like, scenarios could be contained within a 2.5% variance.

But yes rainmantime, it is "gut feeling" with which I make that judgement. I have no facts, other than a broad knowledge of current theories. If you are going to disagree, please note I am only expressing here my beliefs about timeline divergence, (not John Titor). So be my guest to disagree on that basis. I welcome open-minded intellectual exchange, but I won't give up my argument just because you say so

If you can't convince me with facts and sound argument, then I will consider that you have no better idea than I do.

 

[MEM]

Re: Titor\'s Collapse Still Nowhere In Sight

mule to dance.
mule to dance.
mule to dance.
mule to dance.
mule to dance.
mule to dance.
mule to dance.
mule to dance.
mule to dance.
mule to dance.
mule to dance.
mule to dance.
mule to dance.
mule to dance.
mule to dance.
mule to dance.
mule to dance.
mule to dance.
mule to dance.
mule to dance.
mule to dance.
mule to dance.
mule to dance.
mule to dance.
mule to dance.
mule to dance.

 

[RainmanTime]

Re: Titor\'s Collapse Still Nowhere In Sight

And here I thought you had finally grown up, MEM. I thought you could actually interact without resorting to childish rhetoric. A mind is a terrible thing to waste. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

RMT

 

[MEM]

Re: Titor\'s Collapse Still Nowhere In Sight

I thought it was pretty funny too. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

[max_wedge]

Re: Titor\'s Collapse Still Nowhere In Sight

still waiting your reply Rainmantime, or is MEM right?

I wonder why I even bothered, should've listened to MEM in the first place....

 

[RainmanTime]

Re: Titor\'s Collapse Still Nowhere In Sight

still waiting your reply Rainmantime, or is MEM right?

I wonder why I even bothered, should've listened to MEM in the first place....

Perhaps it is I who took MEM's "lesson" to heart as it applies to you?

I don't know what else to say. Contrary to what MEM says, there *is* such a thing as scientific method, and it frowns upon using metrics that you cannot define. I've explained to you why you cannot use a percentage metric to prop-up a physical theory unless you know what measurements that percentage is based upon. You've essentially admitted your belief in Titor's "percentage worldline divergence" is based on a gut feel, and is not scientific (how can it be, if you don't know what the percentage is measuring).

I'm not here to change your beliefs, or anyone else's for that matter. Believe what you wish. But one reason I am here is to point out bad science, and how it can lead to incorrect or unfounded beliefs. As to Titor's divergence measure being fallacious, I do think BOTH of the definitions of fallacious given HERE are certainly accurate for this measure because:

1) A percentage measure without an established reference is an invalid reference (See: fallacy )
2) When taken as a whole, Titor's writings & his "evidence" are certainly intending to be deceptive. Looking solely at the laser photo itself, one can find several deceptive tactics inherent in just that photo, not to mention the rest of Titor's material.

So I think my judgment of Titor's measure of divergence as fallacious is well-founded. But of course you don't have to believe that either.

RMT

 

[RainmanTime]

Re: Titor\'s Collapse Still Nowhere In Sight

max_wedge,

But my argument here is about timeline divergence, not about the authenticity or otherwise of John Titor or other evidence.
(snip)
But despite our knowledge differences, you are only theorising like I am.

No. I am not theorizing when it comes to the definition and uses of percentage. It is a fact of science that any measure quoted as a percentage is useless (or, quite possibly meant to deceive) unless you know the base measurement from which the percentage is derived. It is a fraction, and as with any fraction, you need to know "fraction of what?"

Just because I don't necessarily share you opinion about something doesn't make me unreasoned.

So are you saying that it is your opinion that a percentage can be a useful scientific measure even if you don't know what it is based upon? If so, that would be an opinion that contradicts good science.

You are saying that the story is proven not true because John Titor didn't bother to define what he meant by 10% variance?

Absolutely not. That is not what I am saying, and I will ONCE AGAIN say that it is not *I* (or anyone debunking Titor) that bears ANY burden of proof. What I *am* saying (and I believe I have been consistent in this) is that you CANNOT rely upon Titor's worldline divergence measure as any sort of validation for his story, for the simple fact that it is undefined (i.e. "invalid reference" with respect to a fallacy). IOW: It would be practicing bad science if you were to somehow claim that because Titor told a story about some underfined measure called "worldline divergence" that it somehow lends any sort of credibility to his story.

implies that John Titor could only exist if he had of bothered to define variance.

No, it does not imply that at all. But that is not what I am saying anyway. Read carefully above to see what I am saying.

What if he did exist and just didn't care enough to offer an explanation, or perhaps didn't really understand it himself?

That's fine. And if that is true, then this would be yet more evidence that you cannot rely on this measure (scientifically) to support anything about his story. Just because he can't define it does not make it any more real... in fact, if he can't define it that should cause one to be skeptical....not just up and believe him.

The figure can only be considered fallacious if you accept the story as a hoax from the outset.

No. See definitions of fallacious and fallacy.

Not supplying evidence doesn't really disqualify the 10% variance.

Correct. But now turn that around and see it how a scientist would see it: Without ANY evidence, and certainly without a basis measurement to define it, there is no reason to believe that this measure can or does support his story. Without evidence, it should be considered a fairy tale.

If one where to speculate about a multiple-worlds type of scenario (and I said nothing about infinity, see my rebuttal below) then it would be reasonable to expect that 10% is a large factor of difference between two parallel timelines (see below for MY definition of measurement). But in all honesty rainmantime, neither you nor I have any real scientific facts to back up either our views.

You say it would be reasonable. Upon what facts are that reason based? More specifically: How can you claim it is reasonable when you have no idea what that percentage measurement is based upon?

And to say ten percent of infinity is still infinity? Why don't you refer to you own explanation of a mobius strip?

What I said is mathematically true. Infinite means without bound. Any number you can think of, infinity is much, much, much (infinitely) larger than. So if Titor says there are an infinite (non-finite) number of worldlines, and then says there is a 10% divergence (2.5% to be correct), then we are still talking about infinity. ANY percentage of infinity is still infinity. You have just helped prove my point.

Finite assumes a particle substrate, but what if the underlying structure of the universe is infinitely variable within a finite space, like infinitely small points on a finite line?

It seems like you are eagerly trying to redefine infinity to be something less than infinite. To try to back what you are saying? No matter how you gyrate: Infinity is still infinite. Without bounds. You simply cannot put any kind of bound on it...if you did, it would cease being infinite.

So the variance could simply be the factor by which one timeline is different to another with respect to the finite space.

Speculation. You really don't know. You are throwing up a theory, but have nothing to back it with. Speculation without facts is not scientific.

There may be a limited number of possible scenarios that can branch out backwards and forwards in time and "sideways" from any point in 5-D space (space, time and "one of possible scenarios"), before they bear no significant connection to the originating point.

Based on a theory of INFINITE worldlines, there "may" be ANY situation. There may be a worldline where monkeys fly out of my butt every time someone says the words "Titor was a gay libertarian". There might be another worldline where this only happens every tuesday that falls on a leap year. I can speculate tons of wild theories all day long. I could tell a story better than Titor's if I put my mind to it. But if it does not serve scientific means and investigation, I am not interested.

RMT

 

[Good_Scientist]

Re: Titor\'s Collapse Still Nowhere In Sight

P.S Infinite worlds: all the universes in existence should be visualized as grains of sand forming a sphere of infinite radius, hence a plane of universes. If you go to the universe next door you may never notice any diffence between it and your own universe, however if you travel to the other side of this infinitely large sphere, you will hardly recognise the universe compared to our own.

A fairly good model for anyone wanting to understand this better.

Good Scientist

 

[max_wedge]

Re: Titor\'s Collapse Still Nowhere In Sight

You are dead wrong that you can't theorise apportioning of infinite space. You assume that an infinity on one axis in 5-D space implies an infinity on all others.(we are dealing with atleast five dimensions, do you get that or are you going to argue there too because I can't quote dimensional math?) You have no monopoly on theories of the shape of the universe.

If the universe were made entirely of dogs and cats, and for every dog there were two cats, but an infinite variety of both cats and dogs, then dogs would represent 33% of the universe. That 33% would represent an infinite number of dogs. This is a very simplified analogy obviously, and would only work for inhabitants of that universe in localised space. They would measure all the dogs and cats they see and conclude by inductive reasoning that 33% of the universe is made of dogs. They could only have faith that this is true for their localised space (since they can't count "all" the dogs and cats), but for practical purposes the measure could be relied upon, and you have a finite value that is a portion of infinite space.

Here's another way to apportion infinity without an external reference point. This is very simple, you can do it at home. Imagine you exist in an infinite space. If you look around you, you can divide the horizon into quarters (for example). Then you say; I am going to call everything in this quarter stretching out in a 45 degree arc from where I stand, 'quadrant one'. You have just apportioned infinity. It is relative to yourself, of course, and not an absolute value, and the contents of each quadrant will change depending on your location.

So the 2.5% may be a measurement relative to John Titor's location in time, a slice of an infinite number of possible histories radiating out from John Titor on the 5th axis. (for want of a definition, that axis on which all the possible worlds lie). If that were the case, 2.5% would represent a 9 degree arc on the 5th axis.

However there's an even simple way to measure the 2.5%. It's easy (given the data) to quantify how different one possible history is from another. By measuring all the factors that are the same, and all that are different, you get a percentage of variance. Hardly a slice of infinity. That percentage point may have been calculated by Titor's timemachine using a ratio of timeline variance discovered by early time travellers (by observing a snap shot of events changed compared to events the same on return to their present). This measurement still allows for an infinite variety of wordlines.

If one postulated that John Titor is real then you could also postulate all manner of explanations for why Titor claimed 2.5% AND infinity. That may be convenient for the hoaxer, but an apparent convenience or lack of proof doesn't disprove the story. (You still don't get that I'm not trying to convince anyone of titor's existance. This is just an intellectual exercise for me; whereas you have an emotional need to be right, as evidenced by the scorn you pour on anyone who dares disagree with you. Not to mention the claims of unscientific whenever someone has a thought beyond your conceptual ability).

In terms of self-consistancy, the claim of timeline variance, despite the possiblity he exaggerated about infinity (taking your side for a second), his claim of timeline variance still can't be shown categoricallly to be false, so therefore you can't claim that the unfulfilled predictions prove the story a hoax. Prove that timeline variance due to timetravel is not possible (good luck), then it can be easily shown that John Titor is a hoax. But if John Titor is real, then the predictions have to come true only if timeline variance is impossible. You claimed the story is a fake on the basis of unfullfilled predictions, and I questioned that with the claim that worldline variance would explain it. You then countered with the VIEW, not scientific fact, that 2.5% variance is fallacious. You have no more scientific basis than I do for that claim, therefore you have not proven to me that the unfullfilled predictions can not be explained by worldline variance.

Admittedy, even if we accept that timeline variance is possible, it is difficult to measure whether the 2.5 percent variance is enough to explain the unfullfilled predictions. But again, the onus is on us, not the hoaxer/John Titor (afterall it is YOU saying that the story is not true, so it is up to you to provide the evidence). You are arguing that John Titor's claim of 2.5% is fallacious. You expect that the statement that no-one could ever measure 2.5 percent of infinity is all you need to make that claim.

You, by attacking me as an idiot for my counter-claims, and writing me off from the start as "one of those John Titor" cranks, have shown your true colours. You have demonstrated narrow mindedness, arrogance and a complete lack of discernment. I'm afraid I have to take back what I said about you being smart. I take back ANYTHING I said about you being more knowledgeable than I about these matters. You clearly have little idea about many of the accepted theoretical models of the universe, or any ability to think laterally. You seem more concerned about debunking John Titor than "discovering the truth" about John Titor. Oh, I admit it's surely a hoax, and you are entitled to believe so also, and to expect evidence before you believe. But I never asked anyone to believe. I only claim that the theory of wordline variance offers a good explanation of the un-fullilled predictions (not offering it as proof of the story, but just that it would be possible for the story to be true even given unfullfilled predictions) You have put your case for 2.5% being a fallacious figure. I disagreed on reasonable grounds but you can't see beyond the either/or fallacy that clouds your thinking. EITHER I agree with you OR I am a John Titor wannabe. EITHER the universe is infinite, OR it isn't. Your inability to see that higher order space (5-D for example) can resolve factors that might seem mutually exclusive on lower dimensions shows how incapable you are of thinking outside the box.

MEM, my whole hearted appologies for not listening to you. Have I been too harsh on rainmantime, he who enjoys being associated with an idiot savant, (an idiot savant being a person with no real creativity and only the ability to parrot facts without any real understanding)? I think not.

Rainmantime seems to do nothing but pick on people who come here to share their ideas.

 

[RainmanTime]

Re: Titor\'s Collapse Still Nowhere In Sight

As with others here, you descend into emotional responses when you cannot speak to my points about science. And also like others here, you attempt to put words in my mouth, or make it seem as if I had said things that in no way have I said. So, rather than seeing you refute my points, we get one big diatribe which conveniently ignores my points and only addresses the things you want to address. That is fine if that is what you want to do, but please don't paint me to be some big, evil ogre just because you cannot address my points. OTOH, I will not descend to your level, and instead address your points:

You have no monopoly on theories of the shape of the universe.

Correct, and never did I claim this. But in your wish to get all emotional about this, I can see how you would want to demonize me by painting me as if I did.

Here's another way to apportion infinity without an external reference point. This is very simple, you can do it at home. Imagine you exist in an infinite space. If you look around you, you can divide the horizon into quarters (for example). Then you say; I am going to call everything in this quarter stretching out in a 45 degree arc from where I stand, 'quadrant one'. You have just apportioned infinity.

No. You have not apportioned infinity. You do NOT have "25% of infinity" in one quandrant and "75% of infinity" in the other quandrants. Because of your initial statement of "imagine you are in an infinite space", that means that you simply have four quandrants, each of which is STILL infinite. You can berate me all you want, and try to infer that I am calling you an idiot (which I am not). I am simply pointing out where you are wrong. Infinity divided by ANY number remains infinity. That is because infinity is not a number, but rather a concept that transcends number and therefore it also transcends any sort of measure. HERE is just one link to help you understand the scientific truth about this.

It is relative to yourself, of course, and not an absolute value, and the contents of each quadrant will change depending on your location.

Incomplete. The contents of each quadrant remain infinite.

So the 2.5% may be a measurement relative to John Titor's location in time

And here again we see that you conveniently choose to ignore my point. Sure it MAY be anything. But the substantive issue here is that neither you, nor I (nor Titor, it would seem) knows WHAT it refers to. You can speculate all you want, but your speculation does not and cannot be equated to understanding precisely what Titor was getting at. You wish to get emotional about it, but I am simply pointing out the fact. I am not trying to deny your ability to dream and hope and believe in the tooth fairy, if that is what you want. I am pointing out that the measure he offered as scientific is anything but scientific. It is undefined. Period. End of facts.

whereas you have an emotional need to be right, as evidenced by the scorn you pour on anyone who dares disagree with you.

I'm the one being emotional, eh? Scorn? Yes, well, those who understand appropriate science are often berated by others as "pouring scorn" on others. I am doing nothing of the sort. You may interpret what I am doing in this way, but I am merely pointing out facts that science supports. You are the one getting emotional.

so therefore you can't claim that the unfulfilled predictions prove the story a hoax.

Please read what I have written above, and countless times before. I have never claimed this, nor do I claim to be "proving Titor to be a hoax". As I have said before, and as science has established, you cannot prove something false that is not falsifiable. Will you ever stop arguing a point that I am not making? Probably not, because by arguing a point I am not making you think this makes a good platform to demonize me. Have at it! No harm to me! /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

then countered with the VIEW, not scientific fact, that 2.5% variance is fallacious.

No. Wrong. That would be a FACT because nowhere was this percentage defined. Until it is defined, with empirical evidence to support its viability, then it is fallacious.

You have no more scientific basis than I do for that claim

Again you are incorrect, as the scientific basis of a fraction or percentage must be established before it can be useful. You don't have to admit it, but it is a fact. Let me give you an appropriate analogy: I can claim that our personalities are different (divergent) by a factor of precisely 4.8%. If I never divulge to you what measurement this percentage is based upon, one could forever argue whether it is true or not. The scientific approach is to discard this measurement as viable until one can define its measurement basis. IOW, you would want to know (rightly so) upon what measures I based this assessment of our percentage difference in personalities. This is how science works. Again, you can claim I don't have scientific basis all you want, but it doesn't make you any more correct.

Admittedy, even if we accept that timeline variance is possible, it is difficult to measure whether the 2.5 percent variance is enough to explain the unfullfilled predictions.

Agreed, especially when you consider that you have no idea what that percentage is based upon measurementwise! /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

But again, the onus is on us, not the hoaxer/John Titor (afterall it is YOU saying that the story is not true, so it is up to you to provide the evidence).

And in this single statement we see the crowning exhibition of your unscientific approach! This belief of yours violates all the precepts of accepted science. Ever hear the quote from Carl Sagan that says "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof". That quote is based on the precept of science that the person making the claims has the SOLE burden of proof. So to use your own sort of emotional words: You are "dead wrong" that the onus is on us to disprove Titor. Rather, the onus is on Titor to provide evidence for what he said was true. At least that is the SCIENTIFIC approach to it. You seem to wish to take a non-scientific approach, and that is fine, as long as you don't claim it IS a scientific approach.

You, by attacking me as an idiot for my counter-claims, and writing me off from the start as "one of those John Titor" cranks, have shown your true colours.

And you by stating these falsehoods and claiming that I attacked you, are showing your true colors. Are you now re-incarnating jmpet as max_wedge?

Could you please show me where I called you an "idiot"? Or how about where I "attacked" you? Your wish to take emotional offense to my scientific points is your own problem. Please do not try to demonize me. For one thing, I could care less. For another thing, the record is clear who is speaking factual science, and who is getting emotional.

You have demonstrated narrow mindedness, arrogance and a complete lack of discernment. I'm afraid I have to take back what I said about you being smart. I take back ANYTHING I said about you being more knowledgeable than I about these matters. You clearly have little idea about many of the accepted theoretical models of the universe, or any ability to think laterally.

And if I were as emotionally charged as you are, I would counter these judgments about me with some judgments of my own about you. But I refuse to stoop to your level. I am pointing out errors in your concepts. I am making NO statements about your character. Bash me all you wish... it does not harm me in the least.

But I never asked anyone to believe. I only claim that the theory of wordline variance offers a good explanation of the un-fullilled predictions (not offering it as proof of the story, but just that it would be possible for the story to be true even given unfullfilled predictions) You have put your case for 2.5% being a fallacious figure. I disagreed on reasonable grounds but you can't see beyond the either/or fallacy that clouds your thinking.

And nowhere did I demand that you NOT believe this. I did nothing more than point out the scientific problems associated with your rationale. Happens all the time in the real world of science, and it is actually a good thing because it can help people give up fallacious beliefs which will lead nowhere.

Your inability to see that higher order space (5-D for example) can resolve factors that might seem mutually exclusive on lower dimensions shows how incapable you are of thinking outside the box.

Again you seem to judge hastily. Have you read any of my posts on the relationship between Force, Energy, and Information? In fact, the very post I made this morning in response to Iqbalgomar was discussing 5-D, and how it is my belief that Energy represents the 4th dimension and Information represents the 5th. But you want to judge me as unable to conceive of higher dimensions... that's your belief...I'm fine with it. As long as you realize it very well may NOT reflect reality.

Rainmantime seems to do nothing but pick on people who come here to share their ideas.

Wrong. I do NOT pick on people. I pick on their IDEAS. THAT is the key distinction, and by blurring that distinction you allow yourself to get emotionally charged. And when I "pick" on their ideas, I am doing nothing more that pointing out where science would not agree with their ideas. You wish to paint it as if "I need to be right". It is not about me, it is about a large body of compiled knowledge that forms our basis of scientific understanding.

But have a nice day! :D
RMT

 

[jmpet]

Re: Titor\'s Collapse Still Nowhere In Sight

Dear RainmanTime;

You are the Energizer Bunny of pains in the ass on this website.

In all honesty, I give Covenant's story of travelling back 2000 years to see Christ more credence than anything you have pointed out in the five years you don't hesitate to brag to anyone who will listen that you have been on this website which is ironic because you don't even believe John Titor's story in the first place!

You have no problem patting yourself on the back whenever someone in earnest posts on this board; I am sure in some twisted way you even regard yourself as some kind of "wise man on top of the mountain" that is doing us all a favor by sharing your clearly superior intelligence with us.

And ya know what? This is not a Fox reality show, this is a website. You seem to think that when someone posts here that we're all waiting for you to appear like Gary Coleman to espouse your one liners so we can all laugh; you have this fundamentally bad habit of shooting people down just because "they want the spotlight too". So you attack. You pick and chip away at what people say, you make fun of their words.

And how do you attack everyone?
1. You make fun of them.
2. You use condensending emoticons.
3. Your sentinces start out as valid comments then quickly fall into one liners.
4. You ignore the 90% that you either agree with or don't understand just to find the 10% you can make fun of. Then you ignore 90% of what they said and obsess on the 10%. Then, through some twisted form of logic, once you're done making fun of those people's 10% you conclude the other 90% is also wrong. Then you make fun of them.

What are you claiming to be here? An aerospace engineer? A college professor? Tell ya what- PM me the name and phone number of this college, I think I need some confirmation of your credentials, something you don't hesitate to point out in others. Oh, and for the record, the "college of I told you so" does not count. Am I the only person here who believes your best credential is telling me that I can supersize my order for 39 cents more?

What papers have you published? What degrees do you have? Your methods are unscientific, your writing is more attacking than making a point and you never have a point to make, except for shooting down other people; you are a fraud.

You've been here over five years- what information have you shared with everyone in that time? Have you made a point yet? If no, when? Your vector theories and flux capacitor and orogone collectors and chocolate cakes and 3D space are all psychobabble that make no sense- you can't even summarize what the hell you're talking about yet you don't hesitate to shoot down anyone who feels the need to post here. Who the hell appointed you moderator to this forum?

You're so scientific? Why don't you go to a science website and spew your bullshit there, see how far that gets you. There are plenty of wacko websites out there, most of which are not founded over the premise of a time traveller from the future. Pick another one and pick your fights there, see how far your theories fly. I would like to believe this is an open forum where the free exchange of ideas happen, yet somehow you have appointed yourself guardian and dictate terms from your high tower.

It's quite simple. The more people you shoot down, the less people will post here; you are not good for this website.

Good day, sir.

 

[jmpet]

Re: Titor\'s Collapse Still Nowhere In Sight

Oh, and for the record, the windmills I mentioned before are 200 feet tall with three blades that are at least 150 feet long each. Each windmill assembly weighs many tons but it is perfectly balanced so a 4mph wind will make it blow. And yes, one of them produces enough electricity for 500 homes, I have absolutely no idea how you came to the conclusion that a 200 foot high windmill produces 101 watts of electricity, especially since you're all up with your Newtonian principles and have no idea how much a windmill actually weighs. Coming to any conclusion without enough information is clearly your mea culpa, your RMT nonsensical psychobabble is ample proof of that.

Here is a picture of the windmills I described:
http://members.aol.com/jmpet/windmill.jpg
Those things in the foreground at 40 foot high trees.

As far as solar technology goes, it is too expensive. The people who own solar technology are the same people who own oil wells and they're not dumb. To convert my house to solar energy would cost about $60,000 which translates to me making my money back and getting truly free energy sometime in 2035. You have solar panels? Good for you, good for the guy who sold it to you as well.

And for the record, you fall way short of "knowing everything"; as Dean Galanos is so fond of saying, "you're just begging to be taken down a few notches to be with the rest of us schlubs".

Good day sir.

 

[MEM]

Re: Titor\'s Collapse Still Nowhere In Sight

impet,

here in the states we call such people "dickheads."

 

[RainmanTime]

Re: Titor\'s Collapse Still Nowhere In Sight

If name-calling tirades soothe your soul, jmpet, have at it. Do you really think I care if you don't like me? There is no point for me to respond to all your childish tirades. But there are a few "gems" here that I should give some feedback on:

What are you claiming to be here? An aerospace engineer? A college professor? Tell ya what- PM me the name and phone number of this college, I think I need some confirmation of your credentials, something you don't hesitate to point out in others. Oh, and for the record, the "college of I told you so" does not count. Am I the only person here who believes your best credential is telling me that I can supersize my order for 39 cents more?

I hide nothing, and there is no point in doing it in a PM. My real name is on my profile. The university I teach at is California State Polytechnic University, Pomona, California. I teach in the aerospace engineering department. I'm sure you are smart enough to find the number yourself. Why not call the department and ask who teaches their ARO 201 Systems Engineering class this quarter? Or even ask who will be teaching ARO 202 Aircraft Performance next quarter? They might even tell you what large aerospace company I work for if you ask nicely. You could even ask to be transferred to the records department and they would probably verify my degree for you.

You've been here over five years- what information have you shared with everyone in that time? Have you made a point yet? If no, when? Your vector theories and flux capacitor and orogone collectors and chocolate cakes and 3D space are all psychobabble that make no sense

Perhaps they are "psychobabble" to you because you don't understand enough math to understand what I am talking about? That is a possibility you know. Beyond that, I have ALWAYS asked people to refute my theories and the math they are based upon. So far, no takers. And there were several people before you who, like you, didn't seem to care for me. But when I asked them to "put up or shut up" with respect to falsifying my theories, there was dead silence. So again, I ask you: Show me where I am technically wrong. If you can't handle the heavy math, then why not try something simple: Go to my "spiral" threads and tell me where those are wrong. Or go back to the Massive SpaceTime thread and poke holes in it. I'm all ears.

On to your next reply, as there are some more real "gems" in that one!
RMT

 

[RainmanTime]

Re: Titor\'s Collapse Still Nowhere In Sight

You see, some of the stuff you post here just gets my scientific juices flowing. Such as:

Oh, and for the record, the windmills I mentioned before are 200 feet tall with three blades that are at least 150 feet long each. Each windmill assembly weighs many tons but it is perfectly balanced so a 4mph wind will make it blow. And yes, one of them produces enough electricity for 500 homes

I'd really like to see the math that supports that! I can categorically state that a single one of those windmills does NOT generate power for 500 homes when spinning at 4 mph. That is a physical impossibility.

I have absolutely no idea how you came to the conclusion that a 200 foot high windmill produces 101 watts of electricity

Now see, THAT is a funny statement, because I gave you ALL the math that I used to come to that conclusion. Yet you berate me. How funny is that? I give you ALL the information you need to see my valid, scientific calculations, and you turn around and tell me I am full of it with absolutely NO data or calculcations to back you up? I've got some choice names for what I could call you for that, but I will refrain. Instead I will just state you are arrogant and have no factual data to backup your claims.

since you're all up with your Newtonian principles and have no idea how much a windmill actually weighs.

If you will go back and read the web page I referred you to, you will see that the weight of a windmill has no bearing on how many Watts it can generate. Are you really this dense, or you do always go around beating people down without the slightest scientific data or understanding to back you up?

Now...just to, once again, show you how science works, let's go back and review the engineering equations for wind power now that you have given me some more specifics about those windmills. Shall we? You think you can handle the FACTS that such a scientific analysis will reveal? We will even go a bit deeper and provide both the ideal power and the real power. First, let me remind you of the website that provides these equations:

http://www.awea.org/faq/windpower.html

If each blade is 150 feet long, that would make the swept diameter 300 feet. If we continue to use sea level, standard air density and a wind speed of 4 mph, the ideal power equations on that website would yield:

~ 23 KiloWatts. Not a bad amount of power. But now what happens when we account for losses with the real equation for wind turbine power? If we use optomistic estimates for the performance coefficient (Cp=0.35), generator efficiency (Ng=0.8), and gearbox/bearing efficiency (Nb=0.95), we calculate:

~ 6.116 KiloWatts. Still, this is not a bad amount of power for a single wind turbine. But can 6 KW provide enough power for 500 houses? Hardly. Turning at higher speeds you will get more power, but 4 mph just does not produce as much power as you think. As I mentioned to you before, I have HARD DATA for my solar system that generates peak power of 3.3KW when the sun is at its zenith, and I generate enough power to fulfill my needs and give a LITTLE bit back to the grid. I'll let you make the conclusions as to whether one turbine spinning at 4mph can power 500 homes.

To convert my house to solar energy would cost about $60,000

Yeah, I'd agree that you were getting ripped off. My 3.3KW system only cost me $25K out of pocket, and it will be paid for by 2013.

And for the record, you fall way short of "knowing everything"

And for the record, that is fine because I never once claimed that. You are such a hothead that I am amazed that I have not "gone off" on you earlier. I could really come up with some nasty tirades against you, and I could tear you to shreds on your own lack of scientific knowledge. But that would not prove anything. I would rather let scientific facts show you for what you are.

Good day sir.

Hugs & kisses.... have a nice day!
RMT

 

[RainmanTime]

Re: Titor\'s Collapse Still Nowhere In Sight

here in the states we call such people "dickheads."

Classic MEM, that is! Can't add anything of value, and can't contribute anything constructive... but when it comes to insulting people and calling them names, MEM is your man!

Don't worry, MEM. You're still my favorite! I don't want you getting all jealous or anything.
RMT