There are less than 2 years left before World War III.

[Indigo_0]

There are less than 2 years left before World War III.

3301

 

[Cosmo]

Are we there yet?

 

[Classicalfan626]

I think World War III has already begun, and that it began years ago. QAnon has it that the white hats (or good guys) helped start this as a war to end all wars. Q also indicates that the forces of good around the world, including President Trump and the U.S. military, are fighting this war against the Deep State (AKA the cabal) and its army of disinformation.

 

[brunomazet]

there wont be a nuclear war ever on the levelled plane you are on....that will never happen in this timeline....but russia is trying tol win the 21 century because of the catastrophe that became of the good ole usa... that obviously should be called usdscorp.....the worst problem is that boomers are checking out.... and genx is very weak and millenials are horrific because they are conditioned to the ai domination... the ones under them never had chance they were born into complete ai disaster in the making.... so society will be 100% ai controlled... and your lives will be 100% dependent on that iphone that you think is yours.... already is... and no one really care because as i said millenials and under....like drug addicts.... and this one you cant get off of because they had 80 years to plan this and succeeded that one blue morning with those "19 wonderboys".... they had operation planned for many years to get you to 2020s the way they want you ....they succeeded even if you think this is freedom ... it is not.... it is slavery to the utmost degree.... and only the beginning

 

[RainmanTime]

There are less than 2 years left before World War III.

3301

So according to the OP, we should already be in WW III.

(Looks around... sees some skirmishes...but not WW III YET).
So it looks like someone's timing was a bit off?

RMT

 

[Num7]

Remember, the 1% difference in John Titor's story? Well, here we are again!

At least they tried... I guess...!

 

[Prez]

There might be lots of people out there with glimpses of potential whatsups, but I think one thing is for sure. You gotta at least account for divergence / uncertainty before throwing a grenade like that at random people on the internet lol.

 

[RainmanTime]

You gotta at least account for divergence / uncertainty before throwing a grenade like that at random people on the internet lol.

Uh, no, I don't GOTTA do anything of the sort.

You appear to have wholesale consumed the Titor explanation (excuse) of "timeline divergence." What you do not know is my history on both this website, and the original TTI website. Moreover, do not take my history as only the date which my account here was created. Because I interacted with the alleged John Titor on the original TTI back before registered accounts were ever required. Being that I am a professor of aerospace engineering, and professional aerospace engineer in practice as well, I was one of those people who immediately spotted one of the artifacts of his timeline divergence excuse. In one passage, Titor claimed there was a timeline divergence between ours and his original timeline of "0.002377"). The first problem here was that he gave no units of measure for that alleged divergence. Bad form for someone trying to teach others a scientific topic (and I might know something about that teaching topic). Now you will likely say that "everyone knows he meant percentage." Well, to make such a claim you would have to ASS-U-ME those were the units he was inferring. Again, assuming things does not really work in a highly technical topic, of which both aerospace engineering and alleged time travel would be just two such topics. But the problems do not end there. EVEN IF we "ASS-U-ME" that the units he was using were percentages, the fact remains that ANY citation of percentages must be (and are) based upon some type of physical units which are merely canceled out by the nature of the ratio effect of a percentage. More explicitly, if the base units in question were "furlongs per fortnight" (Fu/FN to abbreviate), then the computation of percentage MUST be based upon some standard value of Fu/FN that represents 100%. Right? I am sure you have to agree with this if you understand anything about science. Hence, the equation for percentage then looks something like this:

% measure = (Base Measure 100% (Fu/FN) - Applied Measure (Fu/FN))/(Base Measure 100% (Fu/FN)) * 100

That clearly shows why the units cancel out, but the problem here is Titor could not (and did not) explain what the units were to begin with, and since he did not define those base units he also did not define what constitutes a 100% measurement in those units.

But the problems are still not over, because this professor of aerospace engineering recognized exactly where he borrowed that numeric value of "0.002377." In fact, any aerospace engineer with a degree would know that number. Because that is not just some number, it is a very specific number. Specifically, when you measure Earth air density in the Imperial Units of Slugs per Cubic Foot (Sl/Ft^3), the standard day, sea level Earth air density accepted values is precisely 0.002377 Sl/Ft^3. That is where Titor borrowed that numeric value, hoping no one would know that abstract value, as his means to try to get people to believe his highly untechnical story of "timeline divergence." However, I was having none of it.

Now, before I turn this discussion back over to you, I would like to ask you if you can provide the accurate, technical definition of how divergence is measured and thereby what units would represent a 100% divergence. Given the highly technical nature that anything like timeline divergence has associated with it, I would presume that in defining the units and the 100% measure for timeline divergence, I would also expect you can show how this measure is derived from Einstein's General Theory of Relativity. As a hint, your definition of divergence would naturally have to include Einstein's metric tensor of space time.

RMT

 

[RainmanTime]

Remember, the 1% difference in John Titor's story? Well, here we are again!

At least they tried... I guess...!

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

 

[Prez]

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

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)

 

[Diligent man]

mama i'm scared

 

[RainmanTime]

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)

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.

Furthermore, not only do you not have any definition related to physics, but then we have this bit of arbitrary codswallop:

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.

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:

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.

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

 

[Prez]

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.

 

[RainmanTime]

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.

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:"

Finally, you haven't done any actual proving wrong.

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

 

[Prez]

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

But you haven't done any of that. So far you've:

1. Complained about divergence not being quantifiable in this thread.
   • I posted an oversimplified guide on the basics of how someone would approach it weeks before your reply.
2. Complained about the units and how numbers were chosen.
   • In my follow up post weeks before on calculating convergence, I explained how I chose those numbers & that they were still yet oversimplifications.
3. Complained about how to quantify fixed points, flux points, etc.
   • I've taken TTI on multiple baby steps so far.
   • In my first post I explained the concept of even working with causality events as fixed, flux, anchor, which is an entirely new concept in physics that's several years ahead of our time.
   • In my second post I explained the concept of causality events having different weights.
     • I also explained that fixed points include things like eclipses, big bang, etc, so it should be clear to some that GR equations substitute in for I.
     • Substituting will start to give you those more meaningful numbers you're desperately asking me for.

I don't really have to prove anything to you because you have nothing to offer me & I gain nothing by giving away all the secret recipe to coke and the KFC 23 flavors all at once.

1. Measuring in the multiverse? Already partially explained in multiple ways for absolute beginners.
2. Quantum gravity? What do you think the "weight" I've been attributing to causality events really indicates at a deeper level?
3. When does the wave function collapse? It becomes clearer it really happens at the moment of measurement & in specific universes that are measurable.
4. Super determinism? Should be pretty clear this is how things really work.
5. They're literally right under your nose already.

You're like the Kronecker to my Cantor. Math history buffs learn that Cantor felt no need to extensively prove transfinite numbers to the satisfaction of old vocal critics of the time like Kronecker. Eventually everyone else figured it out, and now we have orders of infinities and set theory. Cantor's work is what makes this possible. I haven't even gotten to infinities in my posts yet.

I also understand science and the multiverse more than you can possibly imagine & I'm the realest deal this form may have seen in a long time. I'll continue doling out more as I feel like it, and continuing these playful back and forths as you feel so inclined. I've even got a few experiments that can be measured to validate my maths & requires as little as a single photon passing through a double slit and python for one of them.

Over a long enough time period, everyone else will figure out the things I'm saying must be true, because when it all clicks you realize how elegant and intuitive multiversal mechanics is. It's only begins to get messy maths-wise once you start substituting in familiar frameworks like QM or GR. Both possible with the notation I've provided already. No violations of information or conservation. Uncertainty still preserved. It's glorious.

 

[Prez]

Here's another formula for the physicists to chew on. This is an example of the truly elegant math I've been sharing pieces of, and captures the transition from one universe to another using MM notation.

ΨU1→ΨU2=SBH⋅ΨU1+C

Where:
ΨU1 = the quantum state of the universe from which a traveler is transitioning.
ΨU2 = the quantum state of the universe from which a traveler emerges.
SBH = the transformation function or operator associated with a black hole singularity.
C = constant of transformation, conserving aspects of the original universes quantum state.

If you like big and scary formulas that use familiar terms like the gravitational constant, Hamiltonians, Lagrangians, and more, guess what, i've got those too.

 

[Classicalfan626]

@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?

 

[Prez]

@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?

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?

 

[Classicalfan626]

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?

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.