A big problem I use to have with the percent divergence, given by Titor and other 2035ers, was a percent is based on a mathematical division. It is useless to talk about a 1% or 5% divergence if there are not actual numbers you are dividing. Sure you can say an ant turns one way or another but those examples are not numbers you can divide.
I understand the 2004 MySpace Titor may not qualify as "the real" John Titor for some of you, or perhaps any but me, but at least he explained the percent divergence that had some mathematical foundation. It was divergence found from cesium clock readings. This is something you can compute mathematically. The turning of the ant are just implications of that divergence.
I am not sure why I am inclined to share this. For those who understand my peeve about a percent being unfounded, I see a low likelihood they give much credence to Titor. Those who give credence to Titor tend to exclude many others I consider related. Those who are open minded on those two fronts tend not to squabble about mathematical foundations. So yeah. Have a nice Thanksgiving.
I understand the 2004 MySpace Titor may not qualify as "the real" John Titor for some of you, or perhaps any but me, but at least he explained the percent divergence that had some mathematical foundation. It was divergence found from cesium clock readings. This is something you can compute mathematically. The turning of the ant are just implications of that divergence.
I am not sure why I am inclined to share this. For those who understand my peeve about a percent being unfounded, I see a low likelihood they give much credence to Titor. Those who give credence to Titor tend to exclude many others I consider related. Those who are open minded on those two fronts tend not to squabble about mathematical foundations. So yeah. Have a nice Thanksgiving.