WORDS FOR THE FUTURE, by John Titor

RainmanTime writes:
>Taking quotes out of context again, are we?<

No, actually it's pretty much plain as day. Here's that forum:

http://www.timetravelinstitute.com/ttiforum/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=time_travel&Number=18393&Forum=All_Forums&Words=thetazone&Match=Username&Searchpage=0&Limit=25&Old=allposts&Main=18393&Search=true#Post18393

Your quote (this one):

"Some of the "truths" discussed in the writings that thetazone has shared are aligned with the same sorts of things I am discussing in Massive SpaceTime. I latch-on to those fragments that further refine, or frame, my own thoughts. I leave the "other stuff" that doesn't ring true to me."

is a direct response in reference to him comparing his theory with yours. I'd do the copy&paste thing, but I wouldn't want to further be accused of distorting truths.

Hope the issue has been cleared up, now let's get back to your science.
 
but I wouldn't want to further be accused of distorting truths
That is exactly what you were doing with that quote.

now let's get back to your science
No, you see, before you took my quote out of context, you were going to be the one to show me how language beats math in explaining radio waves (or some other equivalent problem). Or do you just spout off BS without any intent to back it up with facts?

RMT
 
Laydeeezzz and Gentlemen!

In this corner, armed with a Massive Space-Time theory, waring a pink bikini, is ... Rainman Time!

And his opponent on the opposite corner, armed with a baseball bat, waring ancient Kiwi war paint is ... Jimpet!

photojeffriesfitz.jpg


The crowd tenses! The bell is about to ring!
Then Creeds say’s, …“Hey Nitescott! … Why did you get me a hotdog with brown ketchup? I hate brown ketchup!”
“Sorry man!” NS replies, “I was in a hurry to get the beer and cornchips before the fight! … Here, have a cornchip!”
 
>No, you see, before you took my quote out of context, you were going to be the one to show me how language beats math in explaining radio waves (or some other equivalent problem). Or do you just spout off BS without any intent to back it up with facts?<

You're right, where would we be without facts. Here are the facts:

1.) On 3/20/05, Thetazone started a thread called "Death is not the end!" which is his take on the universe. The opening comment is about 5 pages and ends with "Awake now, my brother, my sister, work thou with me so that all shall hear the whisper of the 'One' Eternal, Ever-Present Love and Wisdom. Let us all go into the one Home, that Sanctuary wherein all are one family praising our Eternal Loving Father-Mother-God Who gave us birth, born in His image and likeness."

2.) Roel van Houten then posted
"DEATH IS NOT THE END[?] Says who? I beg to differ."

3.) Then RainmanTime posted on 3/22/04:
"Let me try to approach this from a rigorously logical and scientific point of view:

Once you "define" something you also (by exclusion) also define everything else that does not consitute that something.....right? So when I point to the cloudless sky on a bright, sunny day, and I say "that is blue", then I also define all things that are NOT blue. This is a fact of binary logic that cannot be escaped. So now let's apply it to the definition of "physical reality".

In my writings on the 3x3 Matrix of Massive SpaceTime, I put forth the explanation that these 3, integrated elements (Mass, Space, and Time) are what constitute the sum total of all PHYSICAL REALITY. But now, if I define these in this manner, by exclusion I have also defined something else... and that is NON-PHYSICAL reality.

You don't have to believe it...and so far you have maintained this stance. But I am telling you that it is a mathematical, logical fact that it IS there, simply because we all agree that Objects, Space, and Time define our notion of physical reality. We are getting into the realm that Alan Turing pioneered when he defined the "Turing Machine". He showed that an IDEA (concept, algorithm) can be thought of distinctly from the MEDIUM in which that idea is expressed. Thus, the PROCESS by which binary mathematics are executed can be defined independent of the machine that performs them.

Ideas...concepts....processes...algorithms. All of these (and more) are the "stuff" of non-physical reality. And again, while you may not believe it (and I do not want to try to force you to believe it), there IS a part of you (half of you, to be precise) that is NON-PHYSICAL. Some people refer to this collection of your non-physical parts as your "Meme Pool"...with deference to Richard Dawkins who first defined the concept of a Meme as the information equivalent to the Gene.

Are you with me???? Kind Regards,
RainmanTime "

4. Roel van Houten replied to your comment by adding:
"Hi Ray,
We've discussed the 3x3 Matrix of Massive SpaceTime. I think it's logical and in a way you've provided us with scientific facts that back your theory. But...

In reply to:
You don't have to believe it...and so far you have maintained this stance.

I'm not trying to maintain a stance. Sure, I have my own believes, but I'm open to new ideas. It's not a matter of believing. I'm confident that there's much more in the universe that we can currently imagine or perceive. The reason I replied to this thread was because of the way Thetazone tries to force what he calls "immutable" upon us. I don't know about you, but I personally don't like it when people claim their believes to be the absolute truth.

5. To which RainmanTime replied:
"Yes, I am with you. I do see how folks can get a bit peeved at the way he presents his material. In a similar way, this is often what gets me ticked at Creedo.

Some of the 'truths' discussed in the writings that thetazone has shared are aligned with the same sorts of things I am discussing in Massive SpaceTime. I latch-on to those fragments that further refine, or frame, my own thoughts. I leave the 'other stuff' that doesn't ring true to me."
 
Yes, very good. You have factually shown how you have taken it out of the context of THIS THREAD. Well done. You have also shown my logical rationale for the existence of non-physical entities.

Now, how about you stop ignoring the issue that you have provided no rationale for your dismissal of mathematics? And try explaining radio waves to me without the math. Or you can just admit that you cannot support that belief.

RMT
 
main.jpg

The bell rings!
It's the end of round one. The crowd is calm and waits for the response from RMT.

“Actually this brown ketchup is alright!” Says Creedo.
“At least you will know if any blood gets splattered on your dog!” Replies Nitescott.
 
>Now, how about you stop ignoring the issue that you have provided no rationale for your dismissal of mathematics? And try explaining radio waves to me without the math. Or you can just admit that you cannot support that belief.<

I believe that TPM of MST = (Triplex Physical Matrix) of (Massive SpaceTime) would define your opinion, which could be (and likely is) indefensible as scientifically verifiable fact. What you describe is a call to anarchy, not science.
 
Obviously your own material is not good enough to bolster your own ideas.
I believe that TPM of MST = (Triplex Physical Matrix) of (Massive SpaceTime) would define your opinion, which could be (and likely is) indefensible as scientifically verifiable fact. What you describe is a call to anarchy, not science.
And that would be where you fall on your face, for it is defensible. The fact you cannot speak the language of mathematics does not mean it is indefensible. Tensors are higher dimensional concepts which are not amenable to simple language as you like to use. Yes, that's right, you the guy who complains that I am not objective about higher dimensionality. Your ideas of higher dimensionality cannot be described accurately without tensors. But I'd love to see you try.

RMT
 
sport022.jpg

Round two!

Jimpet dives in and rips a piece of flesh from RMT.
The crowd collectively … “ooooowwwws!”

“Did you see that?” Yells Nitescott to Creedo,
“See what?” Replies Creedo, … “My dog has squeezed out of my bun! Give me a hand buddy; I was really enjoying that dog!”

Nitscott was now aware that Creedo hates violence in sporting frameworks.

“Hmmm” … he thinks

"I aint taken dat sheet from you Jimpet!"
Screams Rainman as he pounds him to the floor!
bb_100303_reliant380_std.jpg
 
The bell rings again!
BXNGBELL.jpg


“Oh thank god!” Says Creedo, “this sport is far too tense for me. Let’s go to the track! I like to see them skinny dogs run!”
“Aw C’mon Creedster!” States Nitescott. “I want to see this! … Look! … there is Rainman posing to sports illustrated photographers!”
cardioGirl.jpg
 
jmpet,

Would you or anyone else be interested in presenting a John Titor acid test? The point being once we are past that we can move into truly new terriroty- time travelling without it being told to us by Ralph Nader. One thought is making up a "fact sheet" for time travellers to fill out as step one of their wacko "I am a time traveller!" theory. For example:

1. What time did you come from?
2. Why are you here?
3. Why did you pick this website?
4. How did you get here? How does the machine work?
5. Can you offer immediate proof that you're a time traveller? Lottery numbers, Super Bowls, etc.

That's an excellent idea - if we could only get the would-be time traveler to cooperate. It's been our experience that to get those questions answered they have to be posed as both leading questions and within some sort of "hidden agenda".

Asking them directly is always (read literally - I don't know of an exception) answered as follows:

1. Predictions: I can't answer that because it would (destroy, alter or disrupt) this "timeline" (the last term given without definition).

2. How does your gadget work: I'm not a physicist, and/or;

3. It's a secret and my life would be in danger from your government MIB's

4. Why are you here: To warn you about the End of the World, Death, Destruction and Civil War (and more recently), to tell you that John Titor was my friend, pal, partner or trainer.

Basically you get no direct answers to direct questions.

This doesn't mean that the situation is hopeless. Every time travel story, including Titor's, includes at least some basic "physics". And that's your acid test - the physics.

If the TT talks about ZPE's, magnetic monopoles, free energy or says that Einstein predicted time travel we know right off the bat that it's a hoax. If nonsense physics "techno-babble" is tossed out (like "Top-spin, dual-positive singularities that produce a standard, off-set Tipler sinusoid") you know that you're being had.

Beyond that you can look closely at the physics. It has to make some sense and it has to be based on what is already known about physics. If it isn't then its a hoax. Physics doesn't monitor opinion polls and alter itself based on what the alt.sci.physics community demands of it.


As I said in the previous post, when people like Dave Trott start asking questions that aren't so basic and the answers can't be found with a quick & dirty Google then the TT has to either put up or move on.

Titor never did directly answer Trott's question about proving: "If a spacetime contains a causality-violating time machine, but does not contain a chronology-violating time machine, then the only closed causal curves in the spacetime are closed null geodesics".

The implication (and solution) are really simple and, as I referenced above, it contains a "hidden agenda".

Titor brought up the subject of Tipler, CTC's and timelike vectors. Trott was spoon feeding him information to test his actual knowledge. If Titor had any physics knowledge he should have been able to easily handle the scenario. Trott was parroting Titor but he was using real physics language rather than Titor's Internet techno-babble. Titor didn't recognize his own story in Trott's posed scenario.

And, in addition to that, when Trott posed his question Titor didn't recognize that he was being given the opportunity to refer to Li-Xin Li's paper (Phys. Rev. D 50, R6037–R6040 (1994) "New light on time machines: Against the chronology protection".

A time machine tech should be able to handle that simple scenario. It's a really simple solution. I think that anyone here, if they stopped, looked at the scenario and thought it through could figure it out.

Rather than show that he could handle a simple physics situation where the solution couldn't be found on Google Titor chose to return to "tomorrow".

That's your acid test...physics.
 
>Obviously your own material is not good enough to bolster your own ideas.<

Why use my own words when I can use the logic of your own words against you? Howso?

*I wrote: "I latch on to those fragments that further refine, or frame, my own thoughts. I leave the 'other stuff' that doesn't ring true to me."

*To which you replied "Then this would define your opinion, which could be (and likely is) indefensible as scientifically verifiable fact. What you describe is a call to anarchy, not science."

But as it turns out, "I latch on to those fragments that further refine, or frame, my own thoughts. I leave the 'other stuff' that doesn't ring true to me." was your quote and it referred to your own theories, so therefore:

"TPM of MST = (Triplex Physical Matrix) of (Massive SpaceTime) would define an opinion, which could be (and likely is) indefensible as scientifically verifiable fact. That description is a call to anarchy, not science." must be a logical statement.

Don't think you can jump the shark like that and just get away with it.
 
>Tensors are higher dimensional concepts which are not amenable to simple language as you like to use. Yes, that's right, you the guy who complains that I am not objective about higher dimensionality. Your ideas of higher dimensionality cannot be described accurately without tensors. But I'd love to see you try.<

Tensors are nothing more than forces upon objects independant of their own force i.e. the Milky Way is under the tensor of the expanding galaxy. Tensors are not overly complicated concepts. Tensors tensors tensors. There- I said it. This does nothing towards showing how to control all these vector variables, in fact it goes a long way towards supporting John Titor's time travelling story- his time machine had three tensors- the VGL system which works like Ginger (IT) does. This is old news.

What's even older news is the Riemann curvature tensor theory which was written thirty-three years ago which is a four tensor index (Riemann? Rainman?? Hmmm...).

"Tensors" is a contemporized version of Newton's three laws all rolled into one" tensors. But now we're going back a good 350 years, this is very very old news.

So basically in a nutshell, "TPM of MST = (Triplex Physical Matrix) of (Massive SpaceTime)" means, in layman terms, "Our reality is based on our physical body, plus the tensor forces of the universe that act upon our body" and in even simpler terms "We are the product of the forces of the universe". Or as Hawking put it many years ago, "The quantum state of the universe is defined by a Euclidean path integral over compact metrics. In other words, the boundary condition of the universe is that it has no boundary."

This is it? This is the magic theory that was gonna "set us all straight?" Yeah, I know- I got it all wrong, right?

But why should I make my head hurt thinking when I can just plop in more of your own words here?

"Proof has been overtaken by falsifiability. IOW, one falsification is worth more than a million 'proofs'. I assume you do know that the concept of 'proof' has an underlying problem called the initial bootstrap assumption. This is why falsification has become more important than proof. I am more interested in ensuring that what I propose/develop is formally falsifiable than I am in dedicating time to 'proof'. Reason being that there are plenty of people out there who may be able to falsify my work, and that is a more efficient use of external resources than dedicating my own resources to come up with a single form of proof (which could ultimately be overturned by one good, formal falsification)."

And as far as "loving to see me try" I will use John Titor's words:

"The reason I cannot debunk your calculations is because they are true. They are not false, based on speculative facts or exaggerated. They are just incomplete. What you really want me to do is finish your explanation" -John Titor
 
Don't think you can jump the shark like that and just get away with it.
And don't think you can deny the revisionary interpretation you are pushing, for that is exactly what you have done...and it shows in this very post:

But as it turns out, "I latch on to those fragments that further refine, or frame, my own thoughts. I leave the 'other stuff' that doesn't ring true to me." was your quote and it referred to your own theories
And right here is where you admit to context-switching, but perhaps you don't even know you did it. If you read the context carefully, the reference to "those fragments" was relative to the thoughts and opinions given by the OP (thetazone). You can even see that context when you include the prior sentence:
Some of the 'truths' discussed in the writings that thetazone has shared are aligned with the same sorts of things I am discussing in Massive SpaceTime.
The "truths" presented by thetazone had nothing at all to do with the mathematics associated with Massive SpaceTime, and nowhere did I claim they did. Therefore, your wish to try and trip me up has done nothing more than show how you like to revise the past to make it fit your personal agenda... same thing you do with Titor's words and your "paraphrasing" and footnoting thereof.

So you can see when I said the words above, I was not dismissing any form of established mathematics. Yet when you used my own words, that was the context you were using them in... You were trying to slink away from having to back-up your idea that mathematics is not necessary. And I am still waiting for you to defend that statement.

"TPM of MST = (Triplex Physical Matrix) of (Massive SpaceTime) would define an opinion, which could be (and likely is) indefensible as scientifically verifiable fact. That description is a call to anarchy, not science." must be a logical statement.
Once again, the only way you can make that a logical statement is if you switch the context of "those fragments" from what the OP was saying to the maths of my Massive SpaceTime theory.

Now, would you like to possibly detract your statement about math not being necessary? I see you continue to ignore the radio wave example. If you'd like a simpler one to attack, I can provide that as well. But you really should stop ignoring the statement that YOU MADE. Here it is, to remind you:

You don't need a PhD to understand graduate-level physics, because anything that makes sense can also be boiled down to simple words
I'm waiting for your simple words to describe the details of RF signal transmission. Heck, it might make a great primer for 3rd graders to start designing radio telescopes!

RMT
 
Tensors are nothing more than forces upon objects independant of their own force i.e. the Milky Way is under the tensor of the expanding galaxy.
That would be an incorrect statement, for they are not forces. I'd expect you to have at least done a halfway decent google search to try and bluff this one. Or at least start with the dictionary definition! Beyond that you could have described them with some words from Wolfram. or maybe even rob some words from Wikipedia. But clearly when you read these references, you don't see a whole lot of "simple words" describing tensors.
Tensors are not overly complicated concepts.
Oh really? This coming from the guy who couldn't compute the ideal power of a wind turbine. Perhaps you would like to use some "simple language" to explain the concept that "makes sense" of covariant vs. contravariant tensors?
"Tensors" is a contemporized version of Newton's three laws all rolled into one" tensors. But now we're going back a good 350 years, this is very very old news.
Clearly you are confusing the application of tensors (to explain physical concepts) with the mathematical nature of what tensors describe (multi-dimensional spaces). Moreover, it seems you are implying that because something is "old" that it is no longer useful. If that is your implication, you are getting in deeper than I thought you would. Addition has been around for quite a long time. So are you telling me that because it is "old news" that it is no longer valid?
This is it? This is the magic theory that was gonna "set us all straight?" Yeah, I know- I got it all wrong, right?
To use your hero's words, this is incomplete. You will not be able to understand the mathematics of Massive SpaceTime because you do not understand the dimensional mathematics that describes how vector fields combine to result in tensor fields. I've tried to explain in another thread, but before I could even get to a rank 2 tensor, you claimed it was all rubbish, and now are claiming that it flys in the face of accepted science. You can claim all you want, but if you cannot speak the language then you assertions are baseless.
But why should I make my head hurt thinking
Yes, that would be a burden to you, wouldn't it? I see your style is to avoid deep thinking and just boil things down to "simple words". Yes, you have also shown yourself incapable of thinking when your "solution" to wind energy begins with:
It's very simple:
1. Pay someone to figure it out.
jmpet's philawsafy: "Let other people do the hard work. I'll pay them to do it and claim I was the idea man." That about sums up your position, right?
And as to your hero's quote, you've been taken again by the master charlatan:
"The reason I cannot debunk your calculations is because they are true. They are not false, based on speculative facts or exaggerated. They are just incomplete. What you really want me to do is finish your explanation" -John Titor
The person behind Titor was certainly educated, and educated enough to know that throwing the "incomplete" charge against anything he could not understand (or disprove) is always safe. The reason? Because logician (and mathematician) Kurt Godel proved to us how ANY formal system of closed logic is incomplete. But now: If you think you are so sly that you can just throw the "incompleteness" red herring at my theories, I am left no other assumption other than you do not have the skills to identify precisely where my theory (and maths) for Massive SpaceTime are incomplete. I agree, per Goedel's Incompletness Theorem that they are, indeed, incomplete. But can you either (a) falsify them or (b) exhibit where they are incomplete.

Hell, you don't even have to try to falsify my tensor work. Why not start with the theory I have laid out for "Information Subsumes Physical Energy"? Have a go at that one, if you think you can falsify it. My equation "I = ms^3" is the scalar equation form of a higher dimensional metric above energy. Yes, in its full form it is a rank 3 tensor, but let's see if you can falsify the scalar form first.

RMT
 
jmpet,

Actually I don't see any particular red herring. Lead on.

BTW: Speaking of red herrings...is there any chance that you are involved in any way, directly or indirectly, with the John Titor Foundation's "Titor comic book" project. Are you a friend or associate of Larry Haber?

(No offense intended but we have to run down all leads and possible leads. This one may be nothing...probably is nothing. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif)
 
Never heard of Larry Haber- who is he?

What I find funny about the link is that Ralph Nader got "about 2.5%" of the votes from the 2000 election.

And don't worry- I ain't Titor. And I also researched you too /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
 
>I'd expect you to have at least done a halfway decent google search to try and bluff this one. Or at least start with the dictionary definition! Beyond that you could have described them with some words from Wolfram. or maybe even rob some words from Wikipedia. But clearly when you read these references, you don't see a whole lot of "simple words" describing tensors.<

Exactly. Any idiot with a computer can come up with a theory based on tensors.

>This coming from the guy who couldn't compute the ideal power of a wind turbine. Perhaps you would like to use some "simple language" to explain the concept that "makes sense" of covariant vs. contravariant tensors?<

Okay, let's address this wind power.

"While Katrina did significant damage to one large part of the US energy processing capability (the oil rigs and refineries in that area of the Gulf), it is interesting to think about the amount of raw power that was inherent in Katrina, and how much Energy she delivered to that area. So many people are hemming and hawing and worrying about how it will devastate the economy, and there are going to be "oil wars". But at the same time there are futurists, scientists, and innovators who are looking at the lesson of Katrina and seeing future opportunities for new sources of energy and how to tap into them. One cannot argue the fact that hurricanes (and tornados for that matter) are actually free sources of kinetic energy. They are natural energy events, packed with Power (just what we need to run our energy consuming devices) and just waiting to be tapped by the innovation of mankind. And I can predict with certainty that such power systems will be created as we seek energy from other sources. Imagine a fleet of large wind turbines mounted to floatable rigs that can be moved in a matter of days to stand in front of a hurricane that is approaching an area of coastline. Not only will these wind turbines generate energy from the hurricane's natural power source, but they could also be designed to dissipate the hurricane's energy before it ever reaches the shoreline, thus saving the city. There is already a patent for such a system. It only takes the innovation and engineering excellence, along with financial backers, to make it happen." -RainmanTime

>So are you telling me that because it is "old news" that it is no longer valid?<

Yes! Science is provisional, not falsifiable. Science is based on facts, not conjecture.

>You will not be able to understand the mathematics of Massive SpaceTime because you do not understand the dimensional mathematics that describes how vector fields combine to result in tensor fields.<

I will not be able to understand them because it's needless, over-complicated psychobabble.

>The person behind Titor was certainly educated, and educated enough to know that throwing the "incomplete" charge against anything he could not understand (or disprove) is always safe.<

Guess that rules you out as a "Titor candidate" then.

>Hell, you don't even have to try to falsify my tensor work. Why not start with the theory I have laid out for "Information Subsumes Physical Energy"? Have a go at that one, if you think you can falsify it. My equation "I = ms^3" is the scalar equation form of a higher dimensional metric above energy. Yes, in its full form it is a rank 3 tensor, but let's see if you can falsify the scalar form first.<

Okay, lemmie try. TV = msnbc - cbs X abc (-HBO). It can also work if you substitute HBO with Cinemax.

"TPM of MST = (Triplex Physical Matrix) of (Massive SpaceTime) would define an opinion, which could be (and likely is) indefensible as scientifically verifiable fact. That description is a call to anarchy, not science." (paraphrasing directly from RainmanTime's own words)
 
Back
Top