Help building a divergence meter?

Active Member
I still fail to see the whole point for developing a divergence meter. How could you ever validate it's use? We don't have the ability to physically traverse between the alternate timelines.
Some kind of meter would be required for my idea of a ftl drive. Mine would be a 6th dimensional meter whereas the one discussed here is 5th dimensional.

Although the reason it's discussed here is to determine whether a tineline shift has occurred or not when they happen.

Apri1

Junior Member
Why am I not suprised that you have no idea what I'm saying? You have quite obviously not read my theory at all. Please read what I'm saying before making yourself look like an idiot. Although I guess my idea might be a bit too complex for you?
Just sounds like RNG on top of RNG on top of RNG with some vague "external sensors" referenced and a measure of computer specs. There are multiple issues with this, as I detailed.

Again read what I'm saying. It's not one number. Do you know what the word iteration means? The numbers generated by the RNG is bounced between different mathematical formula selected at random and then based on features of the numbers. These numbers are weighted and plugged into a separate algorithm along with a number of external sensors and data to provide a number or signature.
Basically exactly what I just wrote. "mathematical formula selected at random" would then require another pseudo-RNG. It'd do you a lot of good to understand how computers work.

You asked for a divergence meter. And yes you should clarify. Anyway an actual meter would still take that into account for larger divergences. Anyway my point was that you don't have the same stuff in every timeline. You can't expect to confidently say something incorrect like that and expect me not to correct it.
Yes. My implemented solution fails for the reasons I described in the opening post. Which is why I'm looking for better solutions.

I could say the same about yours. You meter is useless in alternate realities and would fail to operate properly if you had a variation in the other one. It would tell you at best if there was a change based on the number on the other, IF it was any different and that is a big IF. As I've pointed out seperating your dataset from the program allows you to program in a function to give you an accurate percentage.
My meter at the moment detects differences within several different things. And yes, I took a bit of a lazy approach by hashing, rather than directly scanning for the exact change.

I use multiverse and timelines interchangeably. It's the same concept when you get down to it. Try and understand the 10th dimension and you'll understand why. Alternate universes are alternate timelines and vice versa.
And you're wrong. Multiverse refers to several physical universes that are located past the edges of the observable universe. These are unrelated to timelines of the same universe (especially given that each universe then has it's own infinite timelines). "10th dimension" is a reference to string/m theory, which indeed has 10 spacial dimensions. Again, unrelated to our topic, and actually likely doesn't have any other universes. Our topic is timeline decoherence within quantum mechanics. Entirely different from the things you mentioned. Perhaps that's why you're having issues?

Yes 6-9 number digits can be easy to remember, but numbers themselves aren't that useful. Your meter uses one type of source data, and has a limited set of data. (Like a few dozen?) Your meter has next to no chance for variation.
The source content is things I've seen to differ in multiple timelines I've been to. If we're selecting content to include to observe for change, my choices are arguably some of the best.

No your numbers would stay the same because YOU entered them. YOU enter them in alternate timelines. Also you have a small sample size, which leaves very little room for variations.
Well yes. The premise of the meter operates on the fact that I choose the same things for inclusion on each timeline. Though it's a bit amusing here how you assume I'd do the same thing in each timeline, but then faulting me for saying I'd have purchased my mac in each timeline. Hypocrisy much?

@paradox404 I dont really know if this is going to be of any use to you, but seeing that White Noise was brought up within the RNG discussion, a "natural source" of that can be found on the VHF radio frequencies between 88 to 108Mhz...Most of the modern day receivers however have an RLS algorithm fitted to them which eliminates the natural White Noise (hiss)..

But if you have access to an old radio that you need to tune into the center frequency of a VHF Radio station to get rid of the White Noise hissing, use it, or buy a very cheap Chinese VHF/UHF handheld transceiver from which all of them allow White Noise through, but you can "squelch" it out .......By the way, 50% of our Universe contains White Noise, and it is a correlating factor for Time Travel ..
Even if it does help, it's still random noise and not good for a metric. So while it'd solve the detecting change problem, it still wouldn't be a complete and functional meter.

I still fail to see the whole point for developing a divergence meter. How could you ever validate it's use? We don't have the ability to physically traverse between the alternate timelines.
I started this project as a way to measure when this happens. Albeit, not physical travel, but meta/mental travel. I figure building a meter and keeping track of shifts would be the best way to isolate the cause of said shifts, so that I may hopefully recreate it.

Active Member
Just sounds like RNG on top of RNG on top of RNG with some vague "external sensors" referenced and a measure of computer specs. There are multiple issues with this, as I detailed.

Basically exactly what I just wrote. "mathematical formula selected at random" would then require another pseudo-RNG. It'd do you a lot of good to understand how computers work.

Yes. My implemented solution fails for the reasons I described in the opening post. Which is why I'm looking for better solutions.

My meter at the moment detects differences within several different things. And yes, I took a bit of a lazy approach by hashing, rather than directly scanning for the exact change.

And you're wrong. Multiverse refers to several physical universes that are located past the edges of the observable universe. These are unrelated to timelines of the same universe (especially given that each universe then has it's own infinite timelines). "10th dimension" is a reference to string/m theory, which indeed has 10 spacial dimensions. Again, unrelated to our topic, and actually likely doesn't have any other universes. Our topic is timeline decoherence within quantum mechanics. Entirely different from the things you mentioned. Perhaps that's why you're having issues?

The source content is things I've seen to differ in multiple timelines I've been to. If we're selecting content to include to observe for change, my choices are arguably some of the best.

Well yes. The premise of the meter operates on the fact that I choose the same things for inclusion on each timeline. Though it's a bit amusing here how you assume I'd do the same thing in each timeline, but then faulting me for saying I'd have purchased my mac in each timeline. Hypocrisy much?

Even if it does help, it's still random noise and not good for a metric. So while it'd solve the detecting change problem, it still wouldn't be a complete and functional meter.

I started this project as a way to measure when this happens. Albeit, not physical travel, but meta/mental travel. I figure building a meter and keeping track of shifts would be the best way to isolate the cause of said shifts, so that I may hopefully recreate it.

You still haven't got it yet. Still attacking my use of a RNG. You still haven't given a better alternative to using one to achieve the required sample size.

You also haven't understood the basic principles behind using such a large sample size nor have you understood how the external sensors affect the results.

I do understand computers that's why I am using such a large sample size. And no I haven't actually written it yet so I can't be having issues yet can I? Anyway you still haven't understood my logic regarding the way the system works lol.

Eh so I was a bit hypocritical there. Ok cool. Anyway, here's another flaw in your design. What if you arrived in another timeline (From a TM) and there was no meter? How would you get a reading based on your alternate self?

Also you still haven't explained what your source data actually is. All I've seen are numbers. How are the numbers relevant? Also we're talking about an actual meter that measures WORLDLINES not LIFELINES.

Also at the 10th dimension all possible realities become connected. And aside from that every universe has every possible reality in it and that affects the laws of physics too. Basically every universe is the same and that technically the same entity. Also... The other universes reside within the same void now don't they?

As I said please understand my idea before critizing the same point over and over. You critize my use of the RNG without understanding the concept of using it so many times nor how it actually connects to the rest of my idea. Also as I've said you've crapped on about those bits of "data" yours uses however you've never actually bothered to explain what they are.

How many times to I have to repeat myself before you actually bother to understand my theory on this?

Apri1

Junior Member
You still haven't got it yet. Still attacking my use of a RNG. You still haven't given a better alternative to using one to achieve the required sample size.

You also haven't understood the basic principles behind using such a large sample size nor have you understood how the external sensors affect the results.
You're damn right. I haven't proposed an alternative because I don't have one. I just see flaws in yours. I understand your idea fine lol.

I do understand computers that's why I am using such a large sample size. And no I haven't actually written it yet so I can't be having issues yet can I? Anyway you still haven't understood my logic regarding the way the system works lol.
Lol

Eh so I was a bit hypocritical there. Ok cool. Anyway, here's another flaw in your design. What if you arrived in another timeline (From a TM) and there was no meter? How would you get a reading based on your alternate self?
If there was no meter, then that'd demonstrate a change in timeline. Regardless, I realize my original design is flawed, which is why I'm here. I can point out many flaws of it.

Also you still haven't explained what your source data actually is. All I've seen are numbers. How are the numbers relevant? Also we're talking about an actual meter that measures WORLDLINES not LIFELINES.
The code should've made it immediately apparent. I explained several times now. I took observed differences, and then use them as a metric.

Also at the 10th dimension all possible realities become connected. And aside from that every universe has every possible reality in it and that affects the laws of physics too. Basically every universe is the same and that technically the same entity. Also... The other universes reside within the same void now don't they?
This is pretty much just nonsense. No. That's not how anything works. QM timelines have nothing to do with spacial dimensions.

Active Member
You're damn right. I haven't proposed an alternative because I don't have one. I just see flaws in yours. I understand your idea fine lol.

Lol

If there was no meter, then that'd demonstrate a change in timeline. Regardless, I realize my original design is flawed, which is why I'm here. I can point out many flaws of it.

The code should've made it immediately apparent. I explained several times now. I took observed differences, and then use them as a metric.

This is pretty much just nonsense. No. That's not how anything works. QM timelines have nothing to do with spacial dimensions.
Over the course of your postings you've proven you have absolutely no idea how my idea works. Also did I ever say it was perfect? No. I've actually said the opposite. Yours has A LOT more flaws than my idea like being coded in a Webpage. I haven't been attacking you for that like you have been attacking me over the use of a RNG in mine.

Also you do realise someone could easily alter your website by hacking it and that would throw your whole idea out the window. So again, local divergence meters are superior to web ones.

Good you actually understand something. Anyway that's why I suggested being able to read the data from a file in the first place, rather than hardcoding them. Although I take it you were too busy seeing red at the RNG to notice that?

Differences of what? Numbers by themselves have no meaning lol. Where is the context lol?

Ok cool. Whatever. So what if I use the terms interchangeably? What does a "wrong term" have to do with making a meter?

Apri1

Junior Member
Over the course of your postings you've proven you have absolutely no idea how my idea works. Also did I ever say it was perfect? No. I've actually said the opposite. Yours has A LOT more flaws than my idea like being coded in a Webpage. I haven't been attacking you for that like you have been attacking me over the use of a RNG in mine.
Hahahahahaha. The fact that it's a webpage is pretty irrelevant. But yes, my meter has a lot of flaws, as I've continually stated.

Also you do realise someone could easily alter your website by hacking it and that would throw your whole idea out the window. So again, local divergence meters are superior to web ones.
No, they cannot. If you want to try then go for it. The site is secured by the same cryptography that powers bitcoin. You'd have to hack my local network and computer, and then steal my private key in order to alter my site. Not exactly an easy thing to do.

Differences of what? Numbers by themselves have no meaning lol. Where is the context lol?
Have you even looked at the source code at all? Take a moment to do so.

Ok cool. Whatever. So what if I use the terms interchangeably? What does a "wrong term" have to do with making a meter?
Nothing. it's just incorrect.

Active Member
Hahahahahaha. The fact that it's a webpage is pretty irrelevant. But yes, my meter has a lot of flaws, as I've continually stated.

No, they cannot. If you want to try then go for it. The site is secured by the same cryptography that powers bitcoin. You'd have to hack my local network and computer, and then steal my private key in order to alter my site. Not exactly an easy thing to do.

Have you even looked at the source code at all? Take a moment to do so.

Nothing. it's just incorrect.
While you did refer to them you never mentioned them to the level you attacked my idea because of the RNG. Anyway as we discussed on discord, once I figure out a way to reverse engineer the RNG that that site uses, the RNG will no longer be an issue.

I am well aware of that. Now as you should be aware software can be hacked if you know how and with the right resources. Say Apri1 have you ever heard of the Dwave2? I know in 2011 the NSA was interested in Quantum computing to crack cryptographical algorithms. You'd also know that the Tor network has been repeatedly compromised despite being considered one of the most secure networks in the world. Aside from that, Javascipt. Your Javascipt is a *potential* vulnerability.

Already did a number of times. The numbers are meaningless without context.

Ok cool.

TimeFlipper

Senior Member
Quantum Key Distribution (QKD)..
Information about the Key is sent via Photons that have been randomly polarized...Doing that restricts the Photon so that it vibrates in only one plane, for example up and down or left to right...
The recipient can use polarized filters to decipher the Key and then use a chosen algorithm to securely encrypt a message..

The "secret" data still gets sent over normal communication channels, but no one can decode the message unless they have the exact Quantum Key....Potentially that might be a bit awkward because Quantum rules dictate that actually reading the polarized Photons will always change their states, and any hacking attempt will alert the communicators of a breach in security..

Some years ago i believe a Bank used QKD Entangled Photons, but i dont know yet if they have managed to Entangle those Photons over a distance greater than 100 miles....Not certain either if Dwave2 has overcome the skepticism that it actually does Entangle Photons, maybe you can help me out on that one? @paradox404 ..

Active Member
Quantum Key Distribution (QKD)..
Information about the Key is sent via Photons that have been randomly polarized...Doing that restricts the Photon so that it vibrates in only one plane, for example up and down or left to right...
The recipient can use polarized filters to decipher the Key and then use a chosen algorithm to securely encrypt a message..

The "secret" data still gets sent over normal communication channels, but no one can decode the message unless they have the exact Quantum Key....Potentially that might be a bit awkward because Quantum rules dictate that actually reading the polarized Photons will always change their states, and any hacking attempt will alert the communicators of a breach in security..

Some years ago i believe a Bank used QKD Entangled Photons, but i dont know yet if they have managed to Entangle those Photons over a distance greater than 100 miles....Not certain either if Dwave2 has overcome the skepticism that it actually does Entangle Photons, maybe you can help me out on that one? @paradox404 ..
Interesting.

I haven't been reading into quantum entanglement recently. And tbh the most recent thing I read was the Chinese failing at it but saying they succeeded. I'll look into that concept. Last I heard Microsoft released a language for Quantum computers called Q#.

Also I researched the Dwave computer again. Its now called the Dwave 2000Q.