Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Vault
Time Travel Schematics
T.E.C. Time Archive
The Why Files
Have You Seen...?
Chronovisor
TimeTravelForum.tk
TimeTravelForum.net
ParanormalNetwork.net
Paranormalis.com
ConspiracyCafe.net
Streams
Live streams
Featured streams
Multi-Viewer
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Time Travel Forum
John Titor's Legacy
Percent divergence
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Phoenix" data-source="post: 94462" data-attributes="member: 10"><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Phoenix, post: 94462, member: 10"] 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Time Travel Forum
John Titor's Legacy
Percent divergence
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top