wow !!!

what a read.
read all of his posts.

ill stay in the "unsure" group

Again i was interested in this story until I heard that Amazon are selling a book now from ...wait for it...... His mother ROFL ...Now that is typical, create a hoax then all the gullibles run out and buy his book. Was starting to take an interest until I read that. :-/

[edit on 9-6-2004 by Mindsmog]

QUOTE

quote: Q: If this worldline is 2 percent divergent from your worldline, how do you get home? If you go forward from here to 2036, won't the divergence approach infinity?

Yes, this is true. If I go forward on this worldline, the future will not be my future. I get home by going back to 1975 before I arrived and then going forward to 2036.

Your deductions are quite accurate. Its possible to go forward to "your" 2036 and it would look nothing like mine.

A few people have asked me about this statement so I will try to clarify it.

On my worldline: (A) in 2036, I was given a mission in 1975. I turn my machine on and jump to another worldline (B) in 1975 with about a 2% divergence from (A).

From the very point I turn my machine off on (B), I create a new worldline just because I'm there. This line can be described as (C) and started when I got to (B).

I am now doing my mission on line (C) in 1975 when I discover a very a good reason to go forward on (C) and see what happened. I turn my machine on and go forward on (C) to the year 2000.

When I turn it off, I start another line called (D). So from my perspective, here we are on line (D) in the year 2000. In order to go home to line (A) I must turn my machine on and go back on (D) until I reach (C) which in turn would take me back to (B) which in turn takes me to a point before I arrived on (B) then I go forward from the point I arrived on (B) back to (A).

End QUOTE

Everyone is concerned with the divergence of timelines that he will arrive in on 2036. On thing that we all have assumed is the assumption that linear time progresses in the same path. Everyone seems to think that time runs in parallel "lines" that these multiple worlds exist on in parallel. If you take a step back and think about how going "back" may be a forward dialation of time relative to the timeline he's trying to get to, you can start to see how the divergence of time decreases to near infitecimal amounts. Imagine that we can scale down a worldline of 61 years onto a sheet of paper. The assumption is that the delta of time is graduated the same. Lets say Titors Original worldline (A) is 5 inches long parallel to the width of the peice of paper. Each inch would be 12.2 years. Within this flawed assumption (based on my logic) that means that the other worldlines (B,C,D) are also accurately represented 12.2 years per inch. When you draw these lines on the sheet of paper you assume that the beginning is on the left, and the end is on the right, correct? This is the very habit that is clouding your understanding of his situation. You could think that he is jumping worldlines by bending the string membrane that the current worldline exists on to intersect the next timeline. Think of time as two water droplets converging into one droplet, then exisiting as a new droplet. However the original droplets still exist since the original worldline was not changed, but the new one was formed. If there are infinite worlds then there is no stipulation that the worldline had to exist before the previous one in Titors journies.

Let me say it in another way:

Worldline A and B are of probable similar size on the paper assuming no time traveling of matter has occured since the beginning of those worldlines. Once he enters worldline B, the worldline converges to make C, which started at that very instant. With that, you would draw the worldline as a point since there is no other sucessive worldline and it would be lengthened 1in every 12.2 years on the peice of paper. He can then travel on worldline C (assuming it exists for 61 years relative to that worldline) to 2000. At that point he converges into another droplet of time and D is formed. D happens to be our worldline that we know has existed for at least 4 billion years of our time. That would mean that we know our timeline is (based on 12.2 years per inch) 5.17 miles long. You would want to get a peice of paper 6 miles wide and draw a line in parallel with the beginning of timeline D (ours) beginning on the left and the end on the right. After traveling across these multiple sized timelines there is only a 2% divergence from timeline A in a world of infinite worldlines. Obviously if you use the common (laymen) methods of thinking about time you would realize that it is improbable.

Punchline:

Every timeline is represented, no matter the duration, in a 5in line. Some of the time lines are 10E-43 seconds lone, some are billions of years long. The divergence of time cannot be reletive to the perceived dialation of time but rather on the distance of the instances when the worldlines are traversed. Also account for the fact that the worldlines may not go from beginning to end as we know it. We could be going backwards in time compared to another timeline. If he can return back to timeline A without significant divergence, then when he says "back in time" he doesn't mean that he's reversing the clock necessarily. Assume his timeline dialates time the same as ours (forward) and divergence is higher when you go forward in time:

------> (absolute wordline traversal, aka forward)
.................... C--------->D--------> D as we know it
2036..........1975..........2000
A------------>B

That means the A is going backwards, B/C is going forward, and D is going backwards. Conversly, A/D are going forwards and B/C are going backwards.

Assuming the former is correct, I think he can get back to his timeline with little divergence is because he's traveling almost completely backwards in absolute time despite it seeming to our relative perception that he's been bouncing around in time forward and backward.

Further add to the point that worldlines may exist in an infinite angle from eachother, some may be perpendicular to absolute time, thus making "forever" possible as well as "never." Some timelines he's on aren't perfectly parallel, which means the dialation of distance on the world lines (12.2 years per inch) does not mean much. And the worldlines may be curves too. Perhaps that is why going back wont get him back to the worldline A, but worldline A.5 because the relative dialation for time may be an exponential or logarhythmic curve thus making it possible to travel back in absolute time further than travelling forward in absolute time, or the converse, thus the minute divergence of travelling back in absolute time.

I hope this makes sense. it did to me while I was having a moment of clarity typing it.

[edit on 25-2-2005 by paulpas]

Am I the only one who still believes Titor here?

[edit on 27-2-2005 by invader_chris]

I'm not going to quote paulpas, just read two posts above this. Anyway, yeah, that makes sense but how did Titor move his and his machine's matter to a different world? last I checked, matter can not be created nor destroyed, only changed. How then is it possible to take John's and the machine's matter out of a world(destroying) and put it in another(creating)?

has anyone told the flux capacitor joke yet?

anyone?

This thread is gold, what a read. Anyone have any new information on him since 2007?

The Titor story ranks up there in my favorite stories, along with the hollow earth and the intergalactic space war stories. Not that I believe in them really, but they are great freakin stories.

However, I don't think it's fair to put Titor in the same category as those other stories as his was the only one to go above and beyond everything else. Here's how I feel about it and what I think makes his story different.

Titor provided:

1.Photos of his time machine in action
2.photos of the major parts
3.schematics on the machine
4.insignias to back up his military angle
5.a believable theory in regards to his worldline divergences
6.an unchanging back story with few to no obvious holes

Most importantly though, he didn't get insulted and fly off the handle when people questioned him. He didn't get mad or heated, he acted almost like someone who didn't care much 'cause he was leaving anyway.

He openly answered questions about anything, his time machine, his history, his world line, the divergence theories etc. He never had a problem with being open about anything and no one could find any real gaping holes.

Now, a lot of people, Springer included, have had problems with his divergence theory, mainly the idea that he couldn't get back to his original time line. Springer mentioned he couldn't understand how someone could be sent on a mission to get a computer if he could never return to his original world line. Here's how I see it:

Titor mentioned that he could return to a worldline with a 2% divergence from his original. He also mentioned that his presence in an alternate world line would then create a new world line (i.e the original 1975 world line, and the new 1975 with John Titor in it). According to this, he follows the multiverse theory where each action, or choice we make, creates a new set of alternate realities.

For example, there're two doors in front of me, according to this theory, there will be at least three new alternate realities created from this situation. (A) Where I go through door number 1, (B) where I go through door 2 and (C) where I go through neither. However, there are also an infinite amount of other possibilities. These other realities are all effected by the divergence of previous alternate realities before this choice of the two doors.

There could be a reality where I'm a girl, where I'm black, where I'm 8 feet tall, where I'm paralyzed, any number of possible realities. However, the further we get away from this reality I am in right now the greater the divergence percentage between any two given realities.

Given the infinite amount of differences between any two realities with a great enough divergence percentage it becomes obvious that a 2% divergence is really not that significant. That 2% could consist of things small enough to be comparable to someone in "Mission Control" not having brushed their teeth in this new 2% divergent reality whereas they had brushed their teeth in the original world line. Obviously, there would be more things different than the one man not brushing his teeth, but I believe all the differences would be as inconsequential as that example.

The act of Titor traveling back in time (imo) would be significant enough to exceed the 2% divergence. Or in other words, a world line where John had not left in the time machine would have a divergence percentage greater than 2%.

The same would go for any other major differences, i.e. him bringing back a different computer, him returning to a world line where his enemies had won the war etc.

Major differences would exceed a 2% divergence.

The same idea goes for him being able to tell us anything he wants and not worry about changing "the future" (futurepast lol). Since these world lines, or alternate realities, do not follow perfectly parallel courses then two world lines that have a divergence percentage of say 2% in 1975 could have a DP of 25% in 2036. This is also probably why he said he needed to return from 2000 to 1975 and then back to 2036. The DP between our 2000 world line and his 2036 line was too great.

I hope that wasn't too confusing.

read stuff. Looked at website.

Final Conclusion:
The Crusader of Truth says: This is a hoax. Albeit a freakin' huge and marginally believable one, but a scam none the less. The swindle meter went crazy as i read his stuff.