Jump to content

John Titor, The Montauk Project, the e-Cat and Geometric Unity


John Tooker
 Share

Recommended Posts

In the C204 diagram you will see the outputs of positive, null and negative time fields. This is very interesting because the new theory of Geometric Unity also has those time fields corresponding to the future, present and past.

 

Titor said that micro-singularities would be discovered at CERN. Geometric Unity says the universe is inside a black hole from one perspective, but from another perspective the universe is only one elementary particle in a larger fractal cosmos. If the universe is inside a black hole and the universe is an elementary particle, then the idea of a micro-singularity follows directly.

 

The dates at the John Titor website are all meaningful events in the life of the author of Geometric Unity (me, surprise!) The dates near the turn of the millennium all correspond to my military service and the two outlying dates in 2009 correspond to the lectures I attended at Georgia Tech which inspired my model. I have listed the specifics here:

 

What do the dates at the JT Foundation mean to you?

 

Obviously my name is not Titor. However, there is another John on the internet who does have my last name that is also a supposed time traveller. There used to be a site online in 2004 or so called John {mylastname}'s time travel website but it is offline now. If I'm not mistaken it was a geocities site. Still... that other John that does have my last name is credited with helping Steven Gibbs build the hyper-dimensional resonator. (Who, under duress, later built one for a witch.)

 

Here is an interesting article about the Montauk Project that also mentions a John with my last name. PHOENIX UNDEAD: THE MONTAUK PROJECT AND CAMP HERO TODAY

 

What is interesting about that article is that it says the project moved from Montauk to Robins AFB in Warner Robins, GA in 1995. I moved from Tucson to Warner Robins in 1994 and graduated from high school there in 1998. Warner Robins is a small town and many people there know me as Jon.

 

One more thing. There is a rumor on the internet about a free energy device called the e-cat. On May 21 of this year there was a big story that the device had been tested and confirmed by some reputable scientists. I am skeptical of the e-cat but I will explain why I believe it related to my story.

 

The e-cat technology allegedly uses some unknown reaction to morph a special nickel powder into copper in the presence of a helium catalyst and this releases "LENR" energy.

 

I briefly studied astrophysics at GT, but then I had to switch to materials science. I worked in a lab that studied how materials respond to high-speed impact events. I worked on solids but many others in the lab worked on powder compacts and nickel was by far the most popular metal powder we studied. We had a large cannon in the lab that would shoot a projectile at the sample which would be destroyed and caught in a large catch tank.

 

The barrel of the cannon, the sample mount and the catch tank were all sealed against the outside atmosphere. If there was air inside the system, as the high speed projectile came down the barrel, it would ionize and trip all the sample diagnostics before the impact event happened. To avoid that we created a vacuum in the system, then launched the projectile at around 1,000 m/s with compressed helium. Helium is noble gas and very resistant to ionization.

 

Furthermore, because impact properties (high strain-rate properties) of copper are so widely known, the thing we would shoot at the sample was usually a copper cylinder or a flat piece of copper mounted on the end of an aluminum cylinder.

 

With our diagnostics we would study how the shock wave of the impact travelled through the sample, and then the sample fragments would be recovered from the catch tank and inspected using various microscopy methods. Extreme impact events create a very unusual type of alloying between the sample and the impactor.

 

This extremely rare and unusual alloying may have been mistaken for an unknown LENR reaction when in fact it was just the copper bullet hitting the nickel target at high speed. The traces of helium are from gas we used to shoot the projectile.

 

While I was working in the high strain-rate lab, I had independently continued my cosmology research. If my work leads to free energy, and a spy came to look at what I was working on at GT they may have dug one of our discarded samples out of the trash and not understood high-strain rate alloying. That work has zero to do with my independent research.

 

While doing my PhD studies at Georgia Tech I solved the major outstanding problem in physics. I was also very involved in the Occupy movement and I believe it is (partially) for those political reasons that I am not being given due credit for what is plainly evident in my research.

 

This paper is non-scientific and gives the context of Geometric Unity and a loose familiarity with what is happening now.

 

The truth about geometric unity

 

Unlike ordinary cranks ranting on the internet about how they have unified the fields, Geometric Unity has a unique experimental prediction which can verify it or rule it out. CERN was a big part of Titor's story and so it will be in mine. They are expecting that the Higgs-like particle discovered in 2012 will have spin-0, but if it has spin-1 that means Geometric Unity is correct.

 

Here is the first paper I wrote. It is highly technical but non-mathematical and very short. If you have some familiarity with physics I hope it is understandable. I believe I wrote this on the timeline both Titors visited in 2009 with a divergence of 1.941.

 

Modified Spacetime Geometry Addresses Dark Energy, Penrose's Entropy Dilemma, Baryon Asymmetry, Inflation and Matter Anisotropy

 

The actual mathematical breakthrough lies in these three papers.

 

Tempus Edax Rerum

 

Geometric Cosmology

 

Quantum Structure

 

And here is technical, yet qualitative description of the model.

 

Dark Energy in M-Theory

 

spacer.png

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unlike ordinary cranks ranting on the internet about how they have unified the fields,

Well, I am certainly glad you are not an "ordinary crank ranting on the internet." Could you tell me what distinguishes your crankiness from the more ordinary crank? Because a large majority of those "ordinary cranks" always put themselves at the center of amazing new discoveries that no one has, as yet, identified. I am glad you did not do that! ;)It does not appear that any of your papers have been published in peer reviewed journals. I might hazard to guess why, but could you possibly explain that for us?

 

One thing I did notice in your paper "Modified Spacetime Geometry Addresses Dark Energy, Penrose's Entropy

 

Dilemma, Baryon Asymmetry, Inflation and Matter Anisotropy" is that, while you list references at the end of the paper, nowhere in the body of the paper do the explicit statements you make directly point to those references. Had you submitted this paper for peer review, I believe this would be one of the first things that a peer reviewer would point out, among other things.

 

Please and thanks,

 

RMT

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could you tell me what distinguishes your crankiness from the more ordinary crank?

The answer is right there in that sentence you quoted.

 

Unlike ordinary cranks ranting on the internet about how they have unified the fields, Geometric Unity has a unique experimental prediction which can verify it or rule it out.

The prediction for the spin of the new Higgs-like particle is developed here:Quantum Structure

 

I did not submit Modified Spacetime... for peer-review. That is an excellent point you make.

 

In 2009, I submitted that manuscript to arXiv as a rough-draft preprint and it was rejected. Around that time, for money reasons, I switched from astrophysics to materials science. I hoped with Modified Spacetime... floating around in the world, someone would get back to me and fund my research in that area. That didn't happen and obviously I was naive to think it would.

 

In 2011, I discovered that the arXiv reviewer of my 2009 submission had plagiarized me after he rejected me. Also, he had shared the information with his colleagues and at least one of them was writing award winning pop-science articles based on my model. That confirmed that I did have a good idea so I set out to write a more normal looking manuscript:

 

Dark Energy in M-Theory

 

Since 2009, arXiv instituted an endorsed authors only policy so I couldn't submit there right away in 2011. I easily found a regularly publishing author who thought my theory belonged on arXiv and he endorsed me. I submitted the manuscript again it was rejected. My endorsement was revoked shortly thereafter. I am quite certain the same person who plagiarized me in 2009 rejected and revoked me in 2011 but I have no evidence of that.

 

Thinking that maybe arXiv wasn't the right place, I went to the journals. They all rejected me without peer-review simply saying that my physics was "inappropriate." One of the professors at GT thought he would be clever and reviewed my paper at IJTP so that I would have to shut up about not being given access to peer review. He tore me a new one basically saying that I didn't know my ass from the ADM theorem. I responded with a disproof of the ADM theorem, received no further correspondence and was promptly removed from the online submission system.

 

I concede that Dark Energy... is not a numberful piece of research so I set out to create a numberful manuscript. That led to my easy derivation of the fine structure constant. I submitted to many journals including PRL. During this time I was very involved in Occupy Atlanta and was having strife with the local DHS agents. You may recall the FBI released information about a plot to assassinate the occupy leaders.

 

PRL received my manuscript and immediately changed the title from A Derivation of the Fine Structure Constant to Derivation of the Fine Structure Constant. They held it in consideration for several weeks and during that time I was checking the online submission system non-stop. I finally see a status update telling me that I was rejected. I go to log in to my Georgia Tech email to check the reason and I see that my email account has been revoked. PRL rejected my manuscript and GT revoked my email privileges simultaneously. Due to the frequency with which I was checking the status, I know these two events occurred within about 45 minutes of each other.

 

If that is not evidence of an anti-science conspiracy by PRL and GT, I don't know what is. My suspicion is that some feds told them to do that because they did not want to give me a platform on which to enhance my political activities. Then after the feds intervened, APS showed a complete lack of scientific integrity and shut up about it. That is just speculation on my part, but it is a fact that whenever there is a "next Einstein" that person will have significant gravitas in social commentary.

 

I submitted to several more journals who all said it was "inappropriate" without ever identifying even one problem in the manuscript. A few months later, I was able to derive the fine structure constant and Einstein's equations from the same principle. I submitted to several journals again. Each time no peer-review, no criticism, just "inappropriate."

 

I have strong feelings that I am not being allowed into the journals because as soon as I get some respect I am going to use that as a platform to stir up some serious anti-government political shit. Luckily for me, it is only a short while until there is a final determination of the spin of the Higgs-like particle. If it is spin-0, I have been acting rather foolishly. If it is spin-1 people will give significance to my opinion.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A simple method for rating potentially revolutionary contributions to physics:

 

  1. A -5 point starting credit.
     
     
     
  2. 10 points for beginning the description of your theory by saying how long you have been working on it. (10 more for emphasizing that you worked on your own.)
     
     
     
  3. 10 points for claiming that your work is on the cutting edge of a "paradigm shift".
     
     
     

 

 

 

 

  1.  
     
     
  2. 20 points for every use of science fiction works or myths as if they were fact. (Thank yous to Google and Wiki for "making it all possible" and references to John Titor notwithstanding.)
     
     
     

 

 

 

 

  1. 20 points for defending yourself by bringing up (real or imagined) ridicule accorded to your past theories.
     
     
     
  2. 20 points for talking about how great your theory is, but never actually explaining it.
     
     
     
  3. 20 points for each use of the phrase "self-appointed defender of the orthodoxy".
     
     
     
  4. 30 points for suggesting that a famous figure secretly disbelieved in a theory which he or she publicly supported. (E.g., that Feynman was a closet opponent of special relativity, as deduced by reading between the lines in his freshman physics textbooks.)
     
     
     
  5. 40 points for claiming that the "scientific establishment" is engaged in a "conspiracy" to prevent your work from gaining its well-deserved fame, or suchlike.
     
     
     
  6. 40 points for claiming that when your theory is finally appreciated, present-day science will be seen for the sham it truly is. (30 more points for fantasizing about show trials in which scientists who mocked your theories will be forced to recant.)
     
     
     

 

 

205 points - Off the Chart Crankiness. I don't recall anyone ever scoring this high.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How did you get to (6) in your list of ten things? 45 points. You may want to enroll in a course to improve your reading comprehension, clearly it is very poor.

 

yes - 5 to start

 

no - 10 for starting the description with a time. The guy asked me to explain why I was having trouble

 

publishing. That wasn't a description of the theory, and 2009 isn't when I started working on it.

 

no - 10 points for emphasizing a that my work is a paradigm shift. In one paper I mention that it is

 

widely acknowledged that such a shift is needed but I make it overwhelmingly clear the theory

 

will stand on its predictions or it won't.

 

no - 20 for using science fiction as fact. Wikipedia and Google aren't "sci-fi" and your wrong if you

 

think anyone does research without using at least one of them.

 

no - defending myself by bringing up ridicule. The guy asked me to explain. I didn't bring it up, nor am

 

I defending myself from something

 

no - not explaining the theory. Clearly you missed the links that I started this thread to share.

 

no - "self appointed defender of the orthodoxy"

 

no - saying anyone secretly disbelieved anything

 

yes - 40 points for a conspiracy.

 

no - present day science is a sham.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You stated the dates of the website are of significance to your life. That they are about you. Which implies you are John Titor. You are not John. Johns would understand the sentence, as they wrote sentence. I understand the sentence because it correlates to"John" and I. Infact, most of the major numbers of Tempus Edax Rerum do.

 

Pardon my skeptism that has developed the past month. Your writing was not concise. It could be interpreted that you believe you are John. In consequence of my skeptism, all potential Johns will be tested against this one sentence.

 

Are you infact stating you are not a John? And simply, the numbers are in correlation to your life as well? I would like to know how the dates correlate to your life. Please explain.

 

Sincerely,

 

onesix

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And yes. I did read your post. What was the exact date of your entrance into the military? What was the exit date? What branch were you? What MOS? What were the exact dates of the lectures? John is exact when using numbers and date. If your correlating dates are not exact, John Titor has nothing to do with you. So, you say it is about you. Explain. If you can't explain, you are a fake. And, will be dismissed immediately as one.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Tooker,

 

Just as I thought. I observed you watching the thread. You have no response because you're a fake. I apologize for my forward and jaded nature. However, it is best to avoid a long drawn out unnecessary event down a rabbit hole that leads to no where. The lack of honesty in others is quite tiresome. As well, the lack of integrity. I believe you are trying to intrude upon the Titors in order to gain recognition for your own work, when really, Titor has nothing to do with you.

 

If you handle this with a lack of honesty, is it an example of how you have handled those within the scientific community? Because if it is, such is the true reason your colleagues have not paid you what you believe you are due.

 

Simply put, I have grown thoroughly disenchanted with the severe lack of honesty in the people of our society. The Titor story included. If you are truly invlolved, prove it. If not, do not provide a distraction thereby misleading others and watering down the Titor legacy. Allow the Titors their right to one of the greatest happenings in today's history. After all, they have actually *earned* it. ;)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

onesix,

 

I have restored the posts you have deleted. It is anti-social and destroys the continuity of the thread when posters "hit and delete." We do not tolerate that here. If you do not want others to see what you are writing, that is what private conversations are for. Please think BEFORE you post. And if you post and delete again, you will be banned.

 

RMT

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RainmanTime,

 

Logic would indicate you should't make available the delete function for your users then. If it isn't a tool, then why make it a tool? So in essence, this site is dishonest as well, and can't be trusted. Typical for this society, but still disappointing and good to know. I know who won't be using this site in the future. Anyone that really matters. My words are not for you to own. Nor do you hold rights to them. The delete function has made that very clear. Thank you. Please, ban me. It is of no consequence personally to me.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RainmanTime,Logic would indicate you should't make available the delete function for your users then. If it isn't a tool, then why make it a tool? So in essence, this site is dishonest as well, and can't be trusted. Typical for this society, but still disappointing and good to know. I know who won't be using this site in the future. Anyone that really matters. My words are not for you to own. Nor do you hold rights to them. The delete function has made that very clear. Thank you. Please, ban me. It is of no consequence personally to me.

Logic dictates that the owner, Raul, has considered the situation and decided to leave the edit/delete function active because he assumes that posters realize that once a post has been responded to it is unethical to delete the post that the response was made to. He also assumes that posters have read the forum posts and have been put on fair notice that in the past others have been perm. banned for such trolling.Between Ray and myself I can assure you that there are about a dozen prior posts warning about the consequences. Being able to have fair access to edits is a privilege, not a right. Don't abuse the privilege and you won't have to read about such trolling nonsense.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Logic dictates that the owner, Raul, has considered the situation and decided to leave the edit/delete function active because he assumes that posters realize that once a post has been responded to it is unethical to delete the post that the response was made to. He also assumes that posters have read the forum posts and have been put on fair notice that in the past others have been perm. banned for such trolling.Between Ray and myself I can assure you that there are about a dozen prior posts warning about the consequences. Being able to have fair access to edits is a privilege, not a right. Don't abuse the privilege and you won't have to read about such trolling nonsense.

So that I'm a bit more specific, because you challenged Ray to ban you, two specific instances come to mind. I'm not making up either of them.Case 1: Member started a thread. After two weeks of posts - lots of posts - the member deleted the OP post. A bug in the forum software caused the entire thread to disappear. The Member was allowed to stay because it was an OG poster who didn't know any better (but the damage was just as real.) On another site where the same Member was an Admin, the Member deleted the original post on a thread started by him. Member removed as Admin.

 

Case 2: Member (a bonafide fruitbat) decided to delete every post that he's made over the course of about 3 months. Because he was rather prolific that amounted to over 225 posts. But that wasn't enough. When called on his mischief he went further back and completely changed dozens of his posts to utter nonsense (and they were "regular" nonsense to begin with). Perm ban. (Note: The same night he did the same thing on Anomalies.net where I was an Admin. - double perm ban.)

 

Banning you may be of no consequence to you. I agree. You have no track record and nothing invested in this site. You wouldn't be missed and you wouldn't miss the site. But a few of us have over a decade of time invested here. Sure, it's just an alt-sci site of no importance - really. Of no importance. But it's our site to enjoy and we won't let you or anyone else tag it up.

 

So, stay or go. Your choice unless you violate the rules. If you stay, enjoy the time. Debate is encouraged. Debate is fun. Trolling, however, won't be tollerated.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tooker,

 

Come on, pal. Did you really think that I wondn't remember John Tooker from Calgary, Canada? Of course you only made two posts in 2001 and maybe you thought that because Art Bell's "Post-2-Post" forum no longer exists that it would be forgotten. We even made jokes about the Canadian, Tooker, who wore a took hat. Remember? Back on 2-2-2001 you made two posts to John Titor on the "I am from 2036" thread:

 

Posted by John Tooker on 02-02-2001 02:21 AMHey,You're a traveller too? Have you ever interacted with any of the pre 1983 staff, at Montauk? If so, you may have met me. When I was working there, I was a R&D assistant to Dr. Von Neumann, and was known as Daniel John Waters, and had a rank of Lt. Col., in the Psi Corps.

 

I looked exactly like Jack Parsons, in that incarnation, and was in on the "rebellion" that Al Bielek, Preston Nichols, et al were on, and was working with Duncan Cameron on the specific night everything went down.

 

I discovered this largely via recovered memories, and psychical research, but my website, and story, can be read at http://members.tripod.com/~jrtooker/index-2.html, but I have no hard evidence that this person existed. Which is why I'm trying to contact other travellers.

 

BTW, this isn't my original timeline, as I believe that I jumped timelines, not long after doing some work with Steve Gibbs, on his trip up to Calgary, Canada.

 

John

Posted by John Tooker on 02-02-2001 02:24 AM

Hey,

 

You're a traveller too? Have you ever interacted with any of the pre 1983 staff, at Montauk? If so, you may have met me. When I was working there, I was a R&D assistant to Dr. Von Neumann, and was known as Daniel John Waters, and had a rank of Lt. Col., in the Psi Corps.

 

I looked exactly like Jack Parsons, in that incarnation, and was in on the "rebellion" that Al Bielek, Preston Nichols, et al were on, and was working with Duncan Cameron on the specific night everything went down.

 

John

So, while working on your PhD you were part on the Montauk Project, Steven Gibbs HDR Project, you were working with Al Bielek, you were working with Dr. Von Newmann (on the Philadelphia Project) and you held the rank of Lt. Col working on the PSI Corps under a different name...and you wonder why your professors didn't take your physics theories seriously?Oh, boy...

 

I suspect that the word "schizophrenia" has an important meaning in your life.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually Darby, I believe you have abused the privilege of having me as your guest. You personally, far too many times. Who is the troll? I would like to thank you for today. It has been proven today a plethora of times, that a true safe place of communication for the true Johns requires building, to ensure the real trolls will never be heard from again. What a brilliant idea.

 

To the Johns, this place is not good for you. It is filled with imposters and people whose aim is to do nothing but disprove you, instead of give you the support you need at critical times. Do the dubstep and run the other way.

 

Love always

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Darby,

 

You may not know this, but it is possible for different people to have the same name. For instance, my last name is Tooker and many of my relatives also have that name. Interesting about that, we are actually distinct corporeal entities. And that doesn't just go for family members; in high school I knew someone named Mike and there is also someone at my gym named Mike who is an entirely different person. I hope this clears up your confusion because I have never been to Calgary and neither did I make those posts nor claim to have made them. (Though I do mention von Neumann in one of my papers... and last i heard Al Bielek was living in Atlanta.)

 

You and onesix are excellent shit posters!

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John Titor = John Tooker? | Paranormalis

 

In the above link, according to you, some how the Titors have a conspiracy against you to take over your work. Just like all of your colleagues, professors, the government and pretty much anyone who wouldn't listen to you. But somehow, all of the Titors project is about you. And, this comes exactly right after the Titors have made advances in their work. How convienent for you to try to steal the band wagon. Kinda in similitude of your emblem covering up the Titor emblem with black wings coming out your rear end. Appropriate to say the least. No wonder you are referring to feces. As well, you were appropriately named. "Tooker". Trying to take over someone else's hard work.

 

Remember kids, run from male black wings. My goodness.

 

Darby was right on this one.

 

Tooker, even if you are involved, it's not all about you... ;)

 

Night. Lights out. And, say hello to the moon for me.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tooker,

 

After an evening of pondering, please realize I am leaving this site, never to return, solely because of you. I am doing this to prove no one, and I do mean no one, is trying to create disinformation in order to be a distraction for your work. Or to cover it up. Rather, I fully believe its the other way around. And in fact, had I taken the time to observe and ponder your emblem yesterday before ever posting, I would have never asked you a question in the first place. Your the one I've been warned about during the first half of this year. I don't know why. I don't know what you will do. But, your emblem covering up the titor emblem with black wings coming from ~your rear end~ has significant meaning. It means to stay away from you. Allow you to create your own chaos and deal with the consequences yourself. Because honestly, no one is out to get you. And, time will prove it.

 

Love this video. Very comforting. Time to run the other way.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is hilarious! Great work uncovering the roots of Señor Toker and assigning him a point rating. I can't believe that Darby used the term "OG" and that Onesix encouraged a dubstep escape and interpreted the Anonymous logo as having " black wings coming from ~your rear end". Lolol!

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greetings, John Tooker.

 

It’s too bad that yours wasn’t a warm welcome. Please try to understand

 

others’ impatience with your being a self-contradiction. That combined

 

with the fact that your introduction demands a heftier than usual

 

investment from members here is an imposition upon them.

 

Why the empty suit? Is it because you spend more time discussing

 

who you are not than just being yourself? How exactly you identify

 

with John Titor is still unclear, since most of the dates that you regard

 

meaningful to him do not even coincidentally convey significance to

 

the events in your life whereover, unsurprisingly, you gloss. You fail

 

to account for your being in the brig, and expect us to blame activism

 

for your dashed dreams?--since when do thieves need cause to rob,

 

anyway? And to what lengths won’t you go to relate your claims to

 

something whereabout you are “skeptical”?

 

The above questions are for your self-evaluation only. For our effort,

 

please redeem yourself. Give us eloquent benefit of your expertise by

 

addressing the questions following:

 

Does the torus fit into your theory? Since you probably hold geometry

 

more sacred than do I, what’s your opinion of cosmometry?

 

The Torus | Time Travel Institute

 

Lastly, a question on behalf of Jcpo. Provided stars, except for four,

 

appear to move 1 degree per 72 years and complete a full orbit every

 

26,000 years--The Revelation of the Pyramids, when, in the next 37

 

years, will the lion’s heart of the sphinx be aligned with the star Regulus

 

aka Heart of the Lion?

 

Thank you.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...