So according to the OP, we should already be in WW III.There are less than 2 years left before World War III.
3301
Uh, no, I don't GOTTA do anything of the sort.You gotta at least account for divergence / uncertainty before throwing a grenade like that at random people on the internet lol.
Remember, the 1% difference in John Titor's story? Well, here we are again!
At least they tried... I guess...!
My dude I actually posted the mathematics of calculating divergences between universes several weeks ago. Don't count on me as a subscriber to time traveling Titor, but I also wouldn't be surprised to find some truths sprinkled in. Same concepts with me, except I'm letting you know upfront that I'm dynamic. I range from doling out cryptic little clues of maths not yet touched on, to calling specific types of events with degrees of accuracy (factoring in frame of reference and potential divergence), to just outright trolling for fun.Please see my reply above to Prez on this topic. Titor's invocation of divergence (not difference) was never technically substantiated at all. So neither of you actually know, nor can explain, how timeline divergence is even measured. Ergo, a citation of some fictional "1% difference" is not going to advance the ball downfield in this discussion. I expect my old friend Darby might jump into this thread as well, if I know him well.
RMT
Well, "my dude," what you posted is not any sort of rigorous mathematical, nor physical, definition for timeline divergence. Yes, what you posted DOES have some math in it (set theory and basic arithmetic). However, you have not even bothered to attempt to relate this to known, veridical physics. That, my dude, is not only lazy, but misleading.My dude I actually posted the mathematics of calculating divergences between universes several weeks ago. Don't count on me as a subscriber to time traveling Titor, but I also wouldn't be surprised to find some truths sprinkled in. Same concepts with me, except I'm letting you know upfront that I'm dynamic. I range from doling out cryptic little clues of maths not yet touched on, to calling specific types of events with degrees of accuracy (factoring in frame of reference and potential divergence), to just outright trolling for fun.
1% is pretty damn big, in the grand scheme of things considering divergence.
EDIT: Here ya go in case you missed it. (https://timetravelinstitute.com/thr...l-divergence-for-beginners.55942/#post-221262)
To communicate divergence in a common language, we can assign point values to sets.
- Fixed points (I) are worth 10.
- Flux points (Y) are worth 5.
- Anchor points (Q) are worth 8.
Quantifying divergence can be subjective and is messy. Estimating is much easier.
WHEN you're measuring and for HOW LONG also matters. The Aztecs got that right. I may elaborate later.
Numbers. Nothing but arbitrary numbers. And do I again need to point out that there are no units of measure for these arbitrary numbers? Yes, well, I just did so I guess I did need to point that out, "my dude." You do not even provide any rationale for why a fixed point is worth 10, why a flux point is worth 5, and why an anchor point is worth 8. But that is the least of your problems, seeing as how you provided no quantified definition for what constitutes any of those three points. You may think you have, but words do not count in physics. And finally, we see this gem:
First off let me correct you: Quantifying ANYTHING is NOT subjective. So you fail engineering 101 right off the bat. In fact, the whole reason you quantify something is to get AWAY from subjective assessments altogether. For example: My engineering students know they are going to gets massive points deducted if they ever show me an engineering design trade study that has ANY subjective quantities in it.
So, perhaps we can get beyond your excessive arrogance that you know science better than anyone else (coupled with your displayed ignorance about pretty much all things related to classical physics)? You don't want me to sick @Darby on you.
RMT
You're a professor of aerospace engineering, right? I jest, we all assume you must be. Go on, tell the people of TTI about unitless numbers. Not that it matters, since you can call those units RV points. I don't need to give you a rationale on why a fixed point was worth 10 when I straight up assigned arbitrary numbers just to make calculations clean and easy in my beginner-level post.
Also, yes, quantifying divergence is subjective since there can sometimes be less or more commonality on certain things like the weights of causal events. The uncertainty principle exists in the real world, which I know you know. We're talking about multiversal mechanics not engineering, so you'll have to abandon some of your antiquated concepts and actually listen for once.
As far as arrogance goes, you go around telling people nonstop about how you're a professor of aerospace engineering--as if that actually matters here or that I should be impressed. I can't tell you how many smart guys, professors, engineers, scientists, or spooks I know. The only thing that could impress me is you admitting there's some things you could still learn.
Finally, you haven't done any actual proving wrong.Your arguments have been "There are not units to measure these arbitrary numbers?" when 1) unitless math exists already so that's not a problem anyway, 2) you can call them RVs if it makes you feel better, or 3) more advanced students can substitute those variables for w/e they're working with, be that GR or QM. Trying to portray to others that having no units even matters with maths that are foreign to you. Or that subjectiveness in quantifying something you have no frame of reference on how to quantify before me is not possible, apparently ignoring or forgetting the uncertainty principle exists and is applicable in everything I talk about.
Should we both tone it down, or keep going with epeen contests? I have so much more I can share.
Finally, you haven't done any actual proving wrong.
Sorry, spring break is over and I am back to teaching and consulting. I have precious little time to dedicate to someone with your level of pretendership.
But oh, for the record "my dude:"
You see, you demonstrate that you clearly do not understand how science works. Here is how science works: YOU are the one making a claim here. Ostensibly, the claim is that timeline divergence is a scientific reality, and that you know exactly how to quantify it. Whether you like it or not, or realize it or not, that is exactly the claim you are making in these posts. As a result, I bear precisely zero burden in having to prove anything you say is wrong. Even though it is about as easy as shooting fish in a barrel. Rather, you have 100% of the burden to prove the claim you are making. All I have merely done is prove just how far you still have to go to prove your claim. I even tried to give you some help when I suggested to you that your proof of your claim would have to be traceable to, and derived from, accepted veridical physics. Ostensibly those physics that quantify general relativity as we know it, and as it has been validated (thus far). You failed to do that. Instead you relied on set theory, gave an excuse for why you didn't want to quantify anything, and instead chose some random numbering scheme to align with your vague definitions of "fixed points, flux points, and anchor points." In fact, you could not even bother to define precisely how you quantify those three types of points (hint: Quantification of events like that would necessarily require use of Noether's Theorems on Conservation Laws. Those points you describe would necessarily need to be quantified by their total potential, kinetic, and internal energies before you could use them in a metric that identifies timeline divergence).
Enjoy your masterbatory fantasies. Your grade for this little exercise is currently hovering around a C-. You still have time to raise your grade, but I don't believe I sense the earnestness of purpose in your character to take on that challenge.
RMT
My apologies, we did sort of take over this thread. I thought he was going to post his attempted refutations in my actual posts, but it's all happening here instead for some reason lol.@RainmanTime & @Prez - Alright, I fear this arguing back and forth might be derailing this thread. Please, let's continue this argument elsewhere, or I might have to lock the thread. Or am I missing something?
It's quite alright. If you want to start a completely new topic, go ahead. And come to think of it, I think I'll lock this thread after all. That's because even though whether World War 3 has begun or not is a matter of opinion, or "your mileage may vary", a third world war has never been officially announced by any means.My apologies, we did sort of take over this thread. I thought he was going to post his attempted refutations in my actual posts, but it's all happening here instead for some reason lol.
I'll have another post coming up soon, where I lay out the actual framework of multiversal mechanics & it's axioms. Perhaps Rainman or someone else would carry on in the threads about these concepts instead of others. Might answer some other burning questions.
I think we're all in agreement though that WW3 within 2 years was a little off, amirite?