John Titor Fact Check ✔

Let me preface by saying that anything I say is just speculation, and is not meant to dismiss your ideas. I just want to discuss the possibility of alternative speculation. With that being said, I think there are a couple of things that I believe are also possible from your previous post.

Firstly, I made a mistake. The year John traveled back to was 1975.
The secondary objective is basically to gather as much information about a worldline based on a set of observable variables when we first arrive. Your worldline meets these conditions.

Pinpointing the correct timeline was important. If you can pinpoint a timeline and go there, you most certainly can go back to your originaly despite what he said. A convergence point doesn't disappear.

He actually didn't say that he couldn't go back to his original worldline. He said that he couldn't return to his worldline with ZD (zero divergence), but he could return to a worldline that had as little divergence as a worldline that didn't have him in it. Or, in other words, a second or two after he left, so that from an observer's POV it would seem like he was only gone for a second or two.

Bring a gas can with you when the car dies on the side of the road.
Aiming his message to someone that had an experience that resnoated with that statement. The "drivers" may need to reach the timeline where this occurred.
For all I know, you could be right.

⛽However, this statement should resonate with everyone. It is not just a spontaneous statement with no context. According to his mother that wrote the book A Time Traveler's Tale, she remembers with detail exactly why he posted this.

This came directly from the aforementioned book quoting his mother talking about a specific post of Johns, it reads:

📜John's post:

Besides the occasional school or office shooting and violent video footage, I can’t help but think about that experiment (John B. Calhoun's behavioral sink experiments) * every time I see someone stranded on the highway. Or walking on the side of the road carrying an empty gas can. I ask my parents why we don’t stop and help, and they tell me the possible consequences of helping someone they don’t know. I would respond by pointing out that it’s our duty to help, not just because it’s the right thing to do, but because we can never know that person’s true worth and the risk of losing them is too great.

📜 John's mother:

“This event actually happened as we drove down the highway with John one day. We passed a man and woman with a child who had a flat tire and John was insistent we stop. We explained they could easily walk to a phone for help, and we put ourselves in danger by stopping, but John was not deterred. When we arrived home, John and his father went back and helped them.”


🧮 A Time Traveler's Tale

The reasoning for John saying this is actually quite profound and not commonly thought of in this way. For instance, before I knew about John, I was reading about the disparity within our judicial system that has a massive over-representation of Black Americans locked up in prison. I thought to myself, what if Jimi Hendrix was one of those statistics and spent his life in prison? What would music be like now? There are a million examples of that, so I related to why John felt that way about helping people. It isn't about feeling good about yourself, it is about knowing what kind of world you want to live in. The world where no one takes risks to help someone in need, or a world that does not keep driving, and would rather not take the risk of losing someone of great value to the world as a whole.

Thank you for taking the time to read this.

- Jay



--------------------------------------


🐭* John B. Calhoun's behavioral sink experiments. In the late 1950s and early 1960s, Calhoun conducted studies on Norway rats in enclosed environments where they had unlimited access to food and water. His goal was to observe the effects of overpopulation on social behavior.

Despite having plenty of food, the rats exhibited aggressive and destructive behaviors once their population density exceeded a certain threshold. Some engaged in cannibalism, sexual deviation, and withdrawal from social interaction. Others crowded into specific areas, forming extreme population densities, while leaving other spaces empty. Calhoun coined the term “behavioral sink” to describe this collapse in normal behavior due to overcrowding.

Later, he conducted similar experiments on mice, which led to the infamous “Mouse Utopia” study. These findings have been used as an animal model for societal collapse, influencing urban sociology and psychology.
 
Last edited:
He actually didn't say that he couldn't go back to his original worldline. He said that he couldn't return to his worldline with ZD (zero divergence), but he could return to a worldline that had as little divergence as a worldline that didn't have him in it. Or, in other words, a second or two after he left, so that from an observer's POV it would seem like he was only gone for a second or two. and He actually didn't say that he couldn't go back to his original worldline. He said that he couldn't return to his worldline with ZD (zero divergence),

Then it isn't his original. The original worldline would have zero divergence.

Kay may not be real. First gas, now tire. Again, timeline alignment. Anchor reinforced.

". It isn't about feeling good about yourself, it is about knowing what kind of world you want to live in. The world where no one takes risks to help someone in need, or a world that does not keep driving, and would rather not take the risk of losing someone of great value to the world as a whole."

He was instructing the "drivers" To save someone and not bypass or the worldline would change.
 
the worldline would change.
The way John explains the disconnect between worldlines dictates that it wouldn't really matter. (to the worldline he came from)
Then it isn't his original. The original worldline would have zero divergence.
This is true, but what if that didn't matter, as long as "he" isn't there, then it would be close enough. Like the Back to Future analogy, if Marty 1 returns to the better future, Marty 2 would already be there. Marty 1 would have to return to anytime after the point in which he first "left" being chased by the Libyans in the beginning of the movie. He is forever tied to the worldline where Doc Brown is dead, and there is nothing he can do to change that, anymore than John can change the wars of his past.

Don't laugh at my stupid analogy, lol

Am I making any sense, or am I just losing my marbles?

P.S. According to John, (he could be wrong) Zero Divergence is a myth.
 
The way John explains the disconnect between worldlines dictates that it wouldn't really matter. (to the worldline he came from)

This is true, but what if that didn't matter, as long as "he" isn't there, then it would be close enough. Like the Back to Future analogy, if Marty 1 returns to the better future, Marty 2 would already be there. Marty 1 would have to return to anytime after the point in which he first "left" being chased by the Libyans in the beginning of the movie. He is forever tied to the worldline where Doc Brown is dead, and there is nothing he can do to change that, anymore than John can change the wars of his past.

Don't laugh at my stupid analogy, lol

Am I making any sense, or am I just losing my marbles?

P.S. According to John, (he could be wrong) Zero Divergence is a myth.

Zero divergence is mathematically possible.

"A point at which there is zero flux through an enclosing surface has zero divergence."


There may be a reason why he said that it doesn't exit. I just don't know what it is.
 
Zero divergence is mathematically possible.

"A point at which there is zero flux through an enclosing surface has zero divergence."


There may be a reason why he said that it doesn't exit. I just don't know what it is.
I think it has something to do with something I know that you are studying.

Did you know that there is no Roman numeral for the number 0?

You are studying fractals. Fractals are theoretically infinite.

There has been a debate in mathematics, does zero exist?

When measuring something, there is no such thing as a perfect measurement. For instance, when you measure something on a tape measure, you can say something is 5 inches. But what about the width of the line on the 5-inch mark?

Another example is to try a name all of the real numbers in between 1 and 2.

That is why John described it as a myth, but he did say it would be close enough.
 
I think it has something to do with something I know that you are studying.

Did you know that there is no Roman numeral for the number 0?

You are studying fractals. Fractals are theoretically infinite.

There has been a debate in mathematics, does zero exist?

When measuring something, there is no such thing as a perfect measurement. For instance, when you measure something on a tape measure, you can say something is 5 inches. But what about the width of the line on the 5-inch mark?

Another example is to try a name all of the real numbers in between 1 and 2.

That is why John described it as a myth, but he did say it would be close enough.

I've had this argument with myself before, that zero doesn't exist. But I still think one can go back to their original timeline by planting an anchor, a marker, or multiple. It would require math, which means math is required to time travel. There has to be a computer involved, whether it's a Raspberry pi, a small QPU (which does not yet exist), or a laptop.

I can't believe I'm going to do this before my coffee has sunk in:

0 is something, it's not nothing. It represents a quantity. Oh man, that only proves it exists. I'm right. I can't do this before coffee.
 
I am terrible at math, so I will take your word for it.

All I can say about nothing, is that if you call something nothing, then it can't be a non-thing. If it has a name, it must be something. 👀
 
I am terrible at math, so I will take your word for it.

All I can say about nothing, is that if you call something nothing, then it can't be a non-thing. If it has a name, it must be something. 👀

Nothing is something. Therefore, there cannot be nothing. Nothing doesn't exist. 0 can't mean nothing.
 
Greetings,

Just a quick ponder upon The Zero-

Is binary language not made up of ones and zeros ? On or Off ? Pulse and Pause ? Can there not signal that emits from that pulsing ? Also - is there infinite numerical value between zero and one in binary that we don’t know of ? Like a liminal space in between math ? Hmm

In numerology I’ve researched, there is also no numeric value for zero. Just #1-9, 11, 22 . Also the letter O is translated to the number 7. Interesting that the Romans also did not recognize this concept too 🤔

Not sure who discovered the zero and upon looking it up - it seems like a team effort among cultures over ages.

I think it’s fascinating that zero immediately multiplies by big value.
Example 100–> 1000 —> 10,000
Big huge strides. I also just realized is also is micro too. Quantum even.
Ex: .02 to .002 to .0002

It is an amplifier and nullifier.

And what what happen if no one noticed that the codes were overwritten by O’s instead of 0’s and another Y2K II or even III . Would the system collapse, implode /explode or be parallel ? Or multiply by 7 ?

🤩 Fascinating, my mind likes to ponder y’all’s conversations here

Cheers !
 
Greetings,

Just a quick ponder upon The Zero-

Is binary language not made up of ones and zeros ? On or Off ? Pulse and Pause ? Can there not signal that emits from that pulsing ? Also - is there infinite numerical value between zero and one in binary that we don’t know of ? Like a liminal space in between math ? Hmm

In numerology I’ve researched, there is also no numeric value for zero. Just #1-9, 11, 22 . Also the letter O is translated to the number 7. Interesting that the Romans also did not recognize this concept too 🤔

Not sure who discovered the zero and upon looking it up - it seems like a team effort among cultures over ages.

I think it’s fascinating that zero immediately multiplies by big value.
Example 100–> 1000 —> 10,000
Big huge strides. I also just realized is also is micro too. Quantum even.
Ex: .02 to .002 to .0002

It is an amplifier and nullifier.

And what what happen if no one noticed that the codes were overwritten by O’s instead of 0’s and another Y2K II or even III . Would the system collapse, implode /explode or be parallel ? Or multiply by 7 ?

🤩 Fascinating, my mind likes to ponder y’all’s conversations here

Cheers !
Thank you m0! 🧠😊
 
Thank you m0! 🧠😊
Zero does not represent a thing
Zero is a way to express the lack, or ABSENCE of things

So, when you speak of zero divergence, you are saying nothing has changed - there is no change. It's just a static single frame snapshot.

But, when you talk of your perceived experience of day to day life, then everything around you is constantly changing. Time is a measurement of change. There is always a greater than zero divergence between the previous and current tick. So, if you are trying to return to your original point of departure, it's a moving target.

As the timeline evolves, your original point of departure diverges by an equal number of negative ticks. So, how many negative ticks do you try for? Now, throw in the complication of where does the particular timeline end if you can travel to any point in its future? How many negative ticks has your original point of departure shifted then?

As you can see, the answer is leading to something Einstein has observed. It's all relative to the reference points you select on the timeline. Except, Einstein calls these relativistic frames instead of timeline points. but, they are the same thing. A timeline is single dimensional and easier to understand conceptually.

Essentially, there is no zero divergence reference point to return to, because there is no standard way to define where that exactly is, and therefore to locate it.

It's akin to asking what is the standard passage of time between two relativistic frames in Einstein's relativity. Which one is right?
 
Zero does not represent a thing
Zero is a way to express the lack, or ABSENCE of things

So, when you speak of zero divergence, you are saying nothing has changed - there is no change. It's just a static single frame snapshot.

But, when you talk of your perceived experience of day to day life, then everything around you is constantly changing. Time is a measurement of change. There is always a greater than zero divergence between the previous and current tick. So, if you are trying to return to your original point of departure, it's a moving target.

As the timeline evolves, your original point of departure diverges by an equal number of negative ticks. So, how many negative ticks do you try for? Now, throw in the complication of where does the particular timeline end if you can travel to any point in its future? How many negative ticks has your original point of departure shifted then?

As you can see, the answer is leading to something Einstein has observed. It's all relative to the reference points you select on the timeline. Except, Einstein calls these relativistic frames instead of timeline points. but, they are the same thing. A timeline is single dimensional and easier to understand conceptually.

Essentially, there is no zero divergence reference point to return to, because there is no standard way to define where that exactly is, and therefore to locate it.

It's akin to asking what is the standard passage of time between two relativistic frames in Einstein's relativity. Which one is right?

Even if something is always changing, you can choose precise points with math. If you could never return to your point of origin, it would imply that constants don't exist.
 
Even if something is always changing, you can choose precise points with math. If you could never return to your point of origin, it would imply that constants don't exist.

but, where is the ruler you use to find that precise point? The ruler has to be positioned relative to something. Where along the line do you pin it? And, once you pinned it somewhere, the target you are trying to measure has already moved. it's not at zero anymore
 
Even if something is always changing, you can choose precise points with math. If you could never return to your point of origin, it would imply that constants don't exist.
I think what we are trying to say is that there is no such thing as absolute precision in math.
If you measure a table’s length with a ruler, you might say it’s 100 cm, but zooming in further (microscopic level) reveals imperfections, making the exact length uncertain.
They have a term for this, uncertainty quantification. (UQ)

Or measurement uncertainty.

However, those deviations may be so miniscule that on the macro-scale of perception, we won't perceive a noticeable effect.

But it is more than the mathematical implications. There are also philosophical, sociological implications. For instance,

Knightian uncertainty - refers to situations where probabilities cannot be assigned to outcomes due to a lack of knowledge. This distinction between measurable risk and true uncertainty has implications for decision-making and policy.
 
I think what we are trying to say is that there is no such thing as absolute precision in math.
If you measure a table’s length with a ruler, you might say it’s 100 cm, but zooming in further (microscopic level) reveals imperfections, making the exact length uncertain.
They have a term for this, uncertainty quantification. (UQ)

Or measurement uncertainty.

However, those deviations may be so miniscule that on the macro-scale of perception, we won't perceive a noticeable effect.

But it is more than the mathematical implications. There are also philosophical, sociological implications. For instance,

Knightian uncertainty - refers to situations where probabilities cannot be assigned to outcomes due to a lack of knowledge. This distinction between measurable risk and true uncertainty has implications for decision-making and policy.

That's why probability exists. Probabilty exists because of uncertainty. It displays outcomes. But as long as it can be replicated with math, the point of origin can be solved.
 
but, where is the ruler you use to find that precise point? The ruler has to be positioned relative to something. Where along the line do you pin it? And, once you pinned it somewhere, the target you are trying to measure has already moved. it's not at zero anymore


Time is a field of possibility. Each possibility is a stepping stone. When you step on it, it lights up and remains lit so you can find your way back.
This is temporal path retraceability using entangled possibility points that become “observable” only upon interaction. They will remain registered in the field because conscious collapse marks them.

Zero divergence is your baseline - a phase vector. When you "step" into another timeline (i.e. the stone), you're causing decoherence.
And temporal return as recursive memory encoded in light.

What I'm trying to say is - you get back to the original state BY OBSERVING. You said " zooming in further (microscopic level) reveals imperfections". Exactly. You've collapsed the wave of uncertainty. Welcome home.
 
Ok, let me ask you this.

What is inside a quark?

I don't know. I have to do research. Why? I'm learning step by step, like the stones. The reason why I dabble with probability and frequency is because of my quantum computing, which helped me conceptualize concepts like super position and entanglement. Frequencies and probabilities are important! Now, quarks are something I haven't studied, so I have to look that up. You think that I used AI to answer my last question, but I acutally thought of the stepping stones and they inspired my reply. Shrug. I was TAUGHT by AI, but that answer was organically me. If I want AI to reply, I'll use SignalTiger's account.

As far as I can tell, quarks aren't made of smaller components. There is nothing else inside them. They are particles in their own right and make up protons and neutrons.
 
No, I wasn't implying that Ai wrote any of your responses. Your answers seem genuine and that is difficult to feign.

I asked that question because (like you said) as far as science knows, there is nothing inside of a quark. How can there be nothing inside of something? Even in a vacuum there is something. BTW, nothing is something, which means that nothing isn't even nothing.




On the grand scale of the universe, from the smallest things we know of, to the largest thing we know of, people sit on the lower side of the middle of everything. I think a 50-story building is approximately the middle of the scale of the universe. In other words, from a quark's point of view, we are the size of the universe. For the universe, we are the size of a quark. If the universe thought we had nothing inside of us, it would be very wrong. I suspect the same applies to the quark from our relative perspective thinking that the quark is empty. We just haven't discovered a tool of measurement to detect anything smaller than a quark yet.

That is why I believe that:

Precise calculation is a myth. Zero being an approximation is reality on the grand scale of everything. But not just zero, every number.
 
Back
Top