Help building a divergence meter?

Apri1

Junior Member
@Apri1 No disrespect intended, but in my humble opinion you are a very clever hoaxer, and i have no further interest in what appears to me, to be your many fake postings, bye bye ..
Honey, please. If I was gonna hoax I'd do something much more elaborate.

It has come to my attention that the term "Divergence Meter" may have a completely different meaning than what those of us here on the forum expect it to be.

So, what is a Divergence Meter?
A divergence meter properly distinguishes/labels timelines so that one may tell them apart, along with how much one timeline diverges from another. AKA similar number = similar timeline. The anime steins;gate demonstrates the concept perfectly if you're interested.

The first link is correct (albeit talking about the anime and less about divergence meters). The latter two are toys and are no interest to me.

As for me , Im not sure youre gonna be able to accomplish the feat you seek without the help of people who work at CERN or something like that.
Indeed. It does seem like more research is needed. CERN doesn't really study this stuff though.

If M theory is correct how do we measure the differences between the realities? If we are floating through the membranes sometimes existing in one then another sharing our reality with the infinite realities around us can we even ever get a baseline read of measurement to compare other timelines too? .... IDK. maybe...but I know Im not the one thats gonna be able to figure it out.
That's unrelated. I'm not talking about spacial dimensions like M theory is. I'm talking about different probabilistic outcomes that result from quantum mechanics. Yeah it's a challenging problem, and that's why I'm seeking help.

The Divergence Meter is a fictional device.
Just like a time machine, right? Or are you trying to say such a thing is impossible?

Hmm another point you missed. In my last post I suggested yet another variable to compensate for the RNG but it seems it went over the top of your head
I must have missed it, sorry.

I do understand computer science. I have been working with computers for about 9 years now. I understand how to copy a larger hard drive to a smaller ssd and have the data work perfectly.
k.

I understand the fact that RNG's aren't perfect, which is the exact reason I've suggested using so many workarounds to the issues namely in the form of external sensors and any other useful variables that I can think of.
The problem is that the sensor should only be used a single time, to generate the number. And that's assuming it's picking up something different in each timeline.

Besides, how do you intend to pick useful numbers? You're actually far more likely to pick the same numbers out of your head because they're, well, you... That's exactly why I suggested the RNG and went in knowing that they aren't perfect due to relying on the time.
They... don't rely on the time. They rely on a particular seed, which we usually use the time for.

Anyway remember how I suggested the sample size you need is at least a million? You should know that calculation will take a bit of time, longer it takes, greater chance of variations from background tasks on your system, variation = greater seed variation.
Yet again demonstrating your failure to understand RNGs. You choose the seed. And yes, some software chooses the seed based on active processes, tasks, etc. The problem with that is coming up with the same number each time you run the code. Otherwise it's just generating a number that you then write down. Which I suppose could work, but then we could just use other factors that are less likely to be deterministic.

If you understand computer science as well as you say you'd understand that feeding all these variables into the program will take longer on slower parts than faster ones, which would affect what the output of the RNG would be.
What? Why would that have any impact? Pretty much most computers these days can run all sorts of things just fine. Some simple computer diagnostics isn't going to slow anything to a halt unless you're working on a several decade old computer.

Also the Quaila flow selector appears to be some kind of medical valve, not sure what it has to do with Astral time travel? (Thats the actual term your looking for Apri1 lol.)
"Astral" isn't really the right word. Given that there's nothing "astral" about it (astral just being nonsense new age woo). Also: "flow selector" is quite literally a term that refers to a valve that determines which way a flow of something will go. It's used for liquids and pipes normally. Hence qualia flow selector. A selector of qualia flows. If you've got a better name I'm all ears. Unfortunately it seems that no one else is talking about this stuff.

Active Member
Honey, please. If I was gonna hoax I'd do something much more elaborate.

A divergence meter properly distinguishes/labels timelines so that one may tell them apart, along with how much one timeline diverges from another. AKA similar number = similar timeline. The anime steins;gate demonstrates the concept perfectly if you're interested.

The first link is correct (albeit talking about the anime and less about divergence meters). The latter two are toys and are no interest to me.

Indeed. It does seem like more research is needed. CERN doesn't really study this stuff though.

That's unrelated. I'm not talking about spacial dimensions like M theory is. I'm talking about different probabilistic outcomes that result from quantum mechanics. Yeah it's a challenging problem, and that's why I'm seeking help.

Just like a time machine, right? Or are you trying to say such a thing is impossible?

I must have missed it, sorry.

k.

The problem is that the sensor should only be used a single time, to generate the number. And that's assuming it's picking up something different in each timeline.

They... don't rely on the time. They rely on a particular seed, which we usually use the time for.

Yet again demonstrating your failure to understand RNGs. You choose the seed. And yes, some software chooses the seed based on active processes, tasks, etc. The problem with that is coming up with the same number each time you run the code. Otherwise it's just generating a number that you then write down. Which I suppose could work, but then we could just use other factors that are less likely to be deterministic.

What? Why would that have any impact? Pretty much most computers these days can run all sorts of things just fine. Some simple computer diagnostics isn't going to slow anything to a halt unless you're working on a several decade old computer.

"Astral" isn't really the right word. Given that there's nothing "astral" about it (astral just being nonsense new age woo). Also: "flow selector" is quite literally a term that refers to a valve that determines which way a flow of something will go. It's used for liquids and pipes normally. Hence qualia flow selector. A selector of qualia flows. If you've got a better name I'm all ears. Unfortunately it seems that no one else is talking about this stuff.
I don't think you're grasping what I'm saying. I'm talking about potential variables in relation to the hardware. Anyway I'm talking about sequencing the calculations so that the numbers outputted relies more on your CPU than the RNG itself. Basically the RNG is used as the seed and selector. Now that I think about it as well using an algorithm to further shuffle numbers based on certain features about the number may be worth looking into as it would cause further potential variations.

Also my idea isn't about using diagnostics. It could be used as a variable in the calculations but using diagnostics as the only variable is worse than coding it into a webpage tbh.

Also I've already stated that you run it once to a file and the program reads the file. I know Java has the capability to have a program check for a file lol.

Also you say they don't rely on time, but they do. Make up your mind lol. Also the time comes from a oscillating quartz crystal. Maybe look into quartz?

Also I already know what a flow selector is so explaining is kinda trying to teach me how to suck eggs. I was trying to figure out the meaning of the Quiala part of it not flow selector lol.

Anyway your main problem is still calibration and tweaking the algorithms to do what you want even if you do find the variable you're after and even then you have no guarantee of the accuracy in your version and an alternate you's version.

Tbh the main differences between our concepts is yours just hashes some numbers and mine is VARIABLES in a bottle.

Apri1

Junior Member
I don't think you're grasping what I'm saying. I'm talking about potential variables in relation to the hardware. Anyway I'm talking about sequencing the calculations so that the numbers outputted relies more on your CPU than the RNG itself. Basically the RNG is used as the seed and selector. Now that I think about it as well using an algorithm to further shuffle numbers based on certain features about the number may be worth looking into as it would cause further potential variations.

Also my idea isn't about using diagnostics. It could be used as a variable in the calculations but using diagnostics as the only variable is worse than coding it into a webpage tbh.

Also I've already stated that you run it once to a file and the program reads the file. I know Java has the capability to have a program check for a file lol.

Also you say they don't rely on time, but they do. Make up your mind lol. Also the time comes from a oscillating quartz crystal. Maybe look into quartz?
Sigh. You keep bringing up different programming languages as if it makes a difference. RNGs do not rely on particular hardware, unless they're built to do so. The vast majority don't. RNG=Random number generator. You don't use a generator as a seed. You use a number as a seed for an RNG. Please look into how they work.

Why would I save an outputted number to a file, when I could just hardcode it into whatever I need? Kinda pointless tbh.

And yes, RNGs don't have anything to do with time, but they are commonly seeded with the current timestamp.

Also I already know what a flow selector is so explaining is kinda trying to teach me how to suck eggs. I was trying to figure out the meaning of the Quiala part of it not flow selector lol.

Anyway your main problem is still calibration and tweaking the algorithms to do what you want even if you do find the variable you're after and even then you have no guarantee of the accuracy in your version and an alternate you's version.

Tbh the main differences between our concepts is yours just hashes some numbers and mine is VARIABLES in a bottle.
You keep spelling qualia wrong lol. Please educate yourself. And yeah, it seems I should instead pursue some physical trait involved, rather than RNGs or noting changes.

The difference between our methods is that mine actually has a basis in observed changes, while you're stumbling around with RNG algorithms that work identically in each timeline.

Active Member
Sigh. You keep bringing up different programming languages as if it makes a difference. RNGs do not rely on particular hardware, unless they're built to do so. The vast majority don't. RNG=Random number generator. You don't use a generator as a seed. You use a number as a seed for an RNG. Please look into how they work.

Why would I save an outputted number to a file, when I could just hardcode it into whatever I need? Kinda pointless tbh.

And yes, RNGs don't have anything to do with time, but they are commonly seeded with the current timestamp.

You keep spelling qualia wrong lol. Please educate yourself. And yeah, it seems I should instead pursue some physical trait involved, rather than RNGs or noting changes.

The difference between our methods is that mine actually has a basis in observed changes, while you're stumbling around with RNG algorithms that work identically in each timeline.
Lol you still haven't read anything. You keep attacking my theory because it uses a RNG. I've explained again and again that I know why they aren't entirely practical. Please look at what else I'm saying before acting like a bull seeing red.

Also Javascript is a very loose scripting language. It's never actually compiled but interpreted. There is a difference between loose scripting and strict compiling.

Automation basically. To get a more accurate divergence number you need more samples. So you're telling me you're gunna sit there hardcoding like 4 million variables? Either you have no idea how to program or you have no intention of making it properly. Really it's not hard to program a fike reading subroutine, oh wait you're using javascript lol. Nvm hahaha.

Again they are related to time, using the timestamp. Saying they're not related is like saying a car isn't actually using fuel but a combusted mixture, so liquid fuel is irrelevant. (Which we know the combustion comes from the liquid and air.)

I spell it wrong. So what? I'd never heard of it before.

Again attacking my idea without actually addressing your own. I constantly admit mine isn't perfect. All yours is, is a small number of hashed numbers in a webpage that uses a freaking scripting language. And these numbers yiu put in are based on you and your brain. These numbers have little potential variable as your brain put all its efforts to making them. Also my idea currently relies on the RNG very little, it relies on potential variables.

Also using my idea in another timeline is fairly easy. Access the other meter and copy it's data files. You can the calculate the divergence using both data sets. You can't do that with hardcoded variables lol. I take you'll ignore this fact and attack my use of a RNG again?

Last edited:

Apri1

Junior Member
Lol you still haven't read anything. You keep attacking my theory because it uses a RNG. I've explained again and again that I know why they aren't entirely practical. Please look at what else I'm saying before acting like a bull seeing red.
You haven't really fleshed out your idea other than just generating random numbers.

Also Javascript is a very loose scripting language. It's never actually compiled but interpreted. There is a difference between loose scripting and strict compiling.
Yes. I've written my own compilers before. I'm well aware of what javascript is capable of. For my purposes it worked out fine.

Automation basically. To get a more accurate divergence number you need more samples. So you're telling me you're gunna sit there hardcoding like 4 million variables? Either you have no idea how to program or you have no intention of making it properly. Really it's not hard to program a fike reading subroutine, oh wait you're using javascript lol. Nvm hahaha.
This is the first time you've spoken of "4 million variables". And where might these variables come from? It sounds like you're trying to say that I should just check my own computer specs. But those clearly don't change (I'm still on my mac in every timeline). A few MB file isn't that bad. JS could probably handle it fine. How would that many variables be legible and readable though? It's easy enough to generate long strings of data (see the later lines of my current meter). It's more difficult to actually remember them and compare. There's certainly no way I'd remember 4 million variables. That's kinda why a meter is needed.

Again they are related to time, using the timestamp. Saying they're not related is like saying a car isn't actually using fuel but a combusted mixture, so liquid fuel is irrelevant. (Which we know the combustion comes from the liquid and air.)
You realize you can use an RNG without ever touching timestamps, right? Old gameboy games used to do this.

Again attacking my idea without actually addressing your own. I constantly admit mine isn't perfect. All yours is, is a small number of hashed numbers in a webpage that uses a freaking scripting language. And these numbers yiu put in are based on you and your brain. These numbers have little potential variable as your brain put all its efforts to making them. Also my idea currently relies on the RNG very little, it relies on potential variables.
Apparently you don't understand my meter at all. I didn't just make them up and write them. They're hashes of content that I know have changed. At least get it right before you critique. Many of the things I have included I have seen change several times. Which is why I selected them as a good metric. The meter, in this case, will change when the the various things it's measuring change. And that won't happen unless the timeline is different (given that it's a static file).

Also using my idea in another timeline is fairly easy. Access the other meter and copy it's data files. You can the calculate the divergence using both data sets. You can't do that with hardcoded variables lol. I take you'll ignore this fact and attack my use of a RNG again?
The meter I made doesn't have a hardcoded value. I'm not how an RNG number compared with another RNG number will result in divergence. It'd just result in some other random number. Albeit, my current meter also fails at measuring the actual divergence.

Peaceseeker

Junior Member
Howdy, to answer this thought " We're discussing (trying to discuss) a way of measuring which timeline you are in " , i am no expert, by far lol. and forgive me if what i say works with what ya all are sayin or not. But, my gut says, there's an answer within atomic electron transition . i speak about this in another post, but i can't remember where lol .

anyhow, look at the atomic clock , it says that the clock uses an electron transition frequency. on wikipedia anyhow, and then go to atomic electron transition.

It speaks about the electron jumping, and it says "The larger the energy separation of the states between which the electron jumps, the shorter the wavelength of the photon emitted " , if we could compare this to , sensing world lines/ time lines , then perhaps science copies science? the earth is round, the moon is round, ya know? anyhow, perhaps , the , when observing from the travellers position, ... sensing other world lines, the shorter the frequencies (smaller number?) the further away into time they are sensing, while the larger frequencies (larger numbers?) , are times , closer to the travellers position.

Continuing on from this view, just for this discussion or thought, perhaps, if this was true, the way to detect the present world line/ time line, might be to detect , no frequency (0 ?) , and present that as the current position, because if the different directions of time moments, are sending off vibrations, surely that means that the present, would have to be viewed as a the observer point, in which case, to recieve, perhaps it needs to be nothing, no frequency at all. i don't know if that makes sense at all, i'm just sharing what my gut says . lol

i could totally not make any sense at all, just thought i'd share that, cause my gut talks loudly sometimes, that i say , fine! i'll share what it's sayin lol ok, i gotta go for now, Peace to ya All .

edited : to fix a spelling mistake

Active Member
You haven't really fleshed out your idea other than just generating random numbers.

Yes. I've written my own compilers before. I'm well aware of what javascript is capable of. For my purposes it worked out fine.

This is the first time you've spoken of "4 million variables". And where might these variables come from? It sounds like you're trying to say that I should just check my own computer specs. But those clearly don't change (I'm still on my mac in every timeline). A few MB file isn't that bad. JS could probably handle it fine. How would that many variables be legible and readable though? It's easy enough to generate long strings of data (see the later lines of my current meter). It's more difficult to actually remember them and compare. There's certainly no way I'd remember 4 million variables. That's kinda why a meter is needed.

You realize you can use an RNG without ever touching timestamps, right? Old gameboy games used to do this.

Apparently you don't understand my meter at all. I didn't just make them up and write them. They're hashes of content that I know have changed. At least get it right before you critique. Many of the things I have included I have seen change several times. Which is why I selected them as a good metric. The meter, in this case, will change when the the various things it's measuring change. And that won't happen unless the timeline is different (given that it's a static file).

The meter I made doesn't have a hardcoded value. I'm not how an RNG number compared with another RNG number will result in divergence. It'd just result in some other random number. Albeit, my current meter also fails at measuring the actual divergence.
Again you haven't actually read anything other than "Herr Derr I use a RNG". I've explained my idea over my posts here and I've been fleshing it out as i go. How about actually go and read what I'm saying.

Again you prove you can't read. I said you'd need at least one million iterations plus a series of number bouncing and modification algorithms plus external variables to calculate divergence. Here is where I mentioned the 1 million iterations:

Yea I never actually said the program was exhibiting bugs. It's doing exactly what you told it to do. I said what you need to get it to do what you want is completely different.

My suggestion of using a RNG was that you run it once, and writing it to a file. If I recall at least some use the time to assist in the calculations. Anyway the idea is that in your initial generation of the numbers you bounce the numbers through a series of calculations which are randomly selected through the random generator. What this does is create a number of opportunities of the calculations in alternate timelines to be different. The more calculations you force the computer to make the better the better. I'd say you need a minimum string size of AT LEAST one million. Maybe a dozen or two would do for the number bouncing operations.

I already explained why you need external sensors. It is to compensate for the nature of the RNG's spitting out different numbers on near identical worldlines. After all a timeline where you forget to take the rubbish out once shouldn't recieve a high divergence should it? Maybe you'd need a weighting algorithm for this?
No you don't have a mac in every timeline. That comment shows how little you understand about the multiverse. In some timelines you use Windows and others macs don't exist. Please educate youself on this topic before making youself look like an idiot. Also if you want an actual meter you NEED that many variables. You can remember at least some variables though.

Your understanding of the topic has made me sceptical that you'll ever write an actual meter. You've failed to demonstrate basic multiverse knowledge so how can you possibly write a program to automate it?

Again hashed numbers... i fail to see how you could remember all of them properly. i also fail to see the real world significance of them?

You wrote the "Variables" into the program. That is literally called hardcoding.

Hopefully you'll actually read my idea properly Christina.

TimeFlipper

Senior Member
Come on now, I think we can agree to disagree with out the name calling.
You can expect the kind of language from that UnNaturalPhilosopher, it`s a very nasty, obnoxious piece of works..
Its a "cult" thing mate, apparently you can purchase ready made Russian Diverrgence Meters and play at "make believe" with them, just like small and full size models of the Time-Machine from the movie of the same name ..

Last edited:

NaturalPhilosopher

Active Member
Here's my question. Why would a RNG produce a different result in a different worldline? Why is quantum uncertainty different there?

I understand that's the basic postulate but like all quantum theory it lacks causality. There are reasons why tunneling, entanglement and uncertainty happen. It isn't random at all.

If you're skilled in the fringe sciences you can get cold fusion and ftl communication easily.

My advice is study those and why uncertainity is so easily defeated in some experimental setups. In my defense this is what optical quantum people are working on so intensely but they're doing it the hard way.

RNG methods could work but only due to the varying time speed influences upon white noise fluctuations. I'd just use that.

Take regular readings, do a statistical analysis and use it as a baseline. It's old-school but pretty easy.

Last edited:

Active Member
Here's my question. Why would a RNG produce a different result in a different worldline? Why is quantum uncertainty different there?

I understand that's the basic postulate but like all quantum theory it lacks causality. There are reasons why tunneling, entanglement and uncertainty happen. It isn't random at all.

If you're skilled in the fringe sciences you can get cold fusion and ftl communication easily.

My advice is study those and why uncertainity is so easily defeated in some experimental setups. In my defense this is what optical quantum people are working on so intensely but they're doing it the hard way.

RNG methods could work but only due to the varying time speed influences upon white noise fluctuations. I'd just use that.

Take regular readings, do a statistical analysis and use it as a baseline. It's old-school but pretty easy.
An algorithm using iterations of a RNG to produce a base for a large number of iterations of mathematical calculations, despite using a known method(s) to generate a random number, would exhibit different results in alternate timelines due to background tasks affecting when the tasks are scheduled and due to the rate of individual processors etc.

Also I'm working on both of those technologies. Have a major issue with my cold fusion design however. My theroy can theoretically convert the heat energy to power however injecting new hydrogen into the system is confusing atm.

Yea the idea is to use a mix of RNG iterations with mathematical calculations, system analysis, external readings, etc. Old school and new school.