"The future ain't what it used to be."

John Titor, Cern and Black Holes

MeToo

Timekeeper
I don't post here very often. Though I only registered to post about a month ago, I have visited this site and read entries in the forums for many months.

I have no opinion on John Titor and his story.

I do think it interesting that someone would say months before 9-11, that homeland security would be a top, if not the number one, issue in the near future. Most Americans did not even know the name Osama Bin Laden before 9-11.

However, that is not the main reason I am posting today.

I am wondering if anyone here has read this article:

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994446


I found the last paragraph of this short article interesting in light of John's prediction about CERN and black holes. I have copied that paragraph below, citing the above link as reference:

"It would also show that the CERN particle physics laboratory near Geneva will soon be able to churn out black holes to order. Particle collisions at the Large Hadron Collider, due to start in 2007, would have enough energy to create thousands of black holes every day."


Did John Titor not write about CERN and black holes?


Perhaps it isn't so much of a jump to predict that homeland security would be a major issue six + months before 9-11. Many people who follow the news closely could have assumed that there would be terrorist activity on US soil.

However, I am wondering just how many people in early 2000 would have been knowledgeable enough to predict that CERN would be able to create black holes within ten years.


Please don't tear apart my post too badly. I am just an interested observer and thought the time had come to post a link to this New Scientist article since no one else did.

Happy Holidays.
 
That is very interesting, but I think John Titor said it would be in 2005...it would be very interesting if they finished 2 years early. That would be a serious indicator.

There are 2 points that put a serious doubt in my mind regarding Titor’s story:
1) If they have wireless internet and time travel machines why would they need some obsolete UNIX system with a specific compiler.
2) If he began time travel in a one position on earth he would end up in the middle of space, or maybe in the middle of a sun or something…because if you came out of the time travel event horizon you would be in the same place in space time….because he would of remained in a static position but the solar system and the galaxy would be in a completely different position than where he started. Right? I don’t think his car could fly in space or through a planet…could it? I hope that makes sense because it is difficult to explain at this time of night.

However, I think the idea of unlimited power to the entire globe would cause some serious problems…especially with the likes of Bush and his special interests. No need for gas, oil, hydro, atomic energy, bla, bla, bla.
 
1) translating between two languages is a pain. It is extreamely time consuming. It is equivilent to having all accountants throw away their calculators and computers. I bet they'd rather quit their jobs than to add columns of numbers in their heads. If there is a system that could translate machine language running on their systems in the year 2036 into a language that could be easily edited such as APL then it would be very much sought after, like the calculator to an accountant.

2) A question like that is evident that you did not read all of John's posts. They are available at www.johntitor.com The reason that would not happen is that the machine locks on to the gravitational pull of the Earth preventing it from moving at all in relation to the Earth, and nothing else.
 
JScannel,

1) Being a programmer myself I think that is bullshit. If you want to fix a device controlling a electrical grid that was created using a "buggy" version of Unix and have the knowledge of binary code and cpu registry transactions you wouldn't need to invest a human life to go and obtain some slow obsolete system. Or you could just yank the controller of the system and replace it with something that is not a century old! There is no reason for it.... so this brings me to 1 of two possible conclusions 1) John Titor is full of [censored] or 2) Or He lied regarding his real purpose.

2 ) "A question like that is evident that you did not read all of John's posts" ... busted /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif I did read all of it, several pages, but do not remember everything. THanks for pointing that out.
 
1. Perhaps you did not understand what I wrote. It would be a pain to manually translate the volume of code in 2036. That is my hypothesis for the need for the 5100.

2. I said that because I've seen many people post the same thing. The subject was covered several times by John.
 
"1. Perhaps you did not understand what I wrote. It would be a pain to manually translate the volume of code in 2036. That is my hypothesis for the need for the 5100."

Actually I think he said he wanted a compiler that compiled in assembly language (the 5100 being one of few machines that can do such a thing and not be affected from EMS)...which makes no sense to me because assembly is basicaly writing CPU registrie instructions. If they have wireless internet I hope they no how to write assembly. Basicaly modern programming languages translates structured logic to assembly code....if my schooling is up to par. So back to the same conclusion that there should be no need for it in 2035 unless he wanted to put it someplace to be found after 2015.
 
Assembly language and machine language can be converted back and forth rather easily. Machine language is basicly assembly commands converted into hex, and labels are designated memory addresses. Assembly is MUCH easier to read, but when a person becomes familiar with the OP table of commands (commands in hex) and know how many operators each command has and the size of the operators, machine language can be edited, but it takes MUCH more time to do it. It would DRASTICALLY reduce editing time to convert the code into assembly first.
 
Back
Top