Random Thoughts – Randosity!

Alleged Time Traveler – John Titor

Posted in odd postings by commorancy on December 10, 2008

John Titor — Time Traveler or Time Waster?

John Titor is the alleged time traveler from the year 2036. He was apparently born in 1998 and would be 10 years old in 2008. He also claims that a civil war begins in 2005 and ends by 2015 which, Titor says, leads to a very rapid nuclear holocaust on major cities in the US. Anyway, in 2008 we should be right in the heart of Titor’s described civil war. So far, I don’t see it. Anyway, that’s not my point, but it does support it.

2038 UNIX Problem

One of the consistent things that Titor kept mentioning in his posts is the 2038 UNIX problem. Unfortnately, he didn’t describe this problem in detail. Well, the UNIX problem that he keeps mentioning is related to a 32 bit issue with the clock. UNIX sets its epoch (starting point) to midnight 1/1/1970. Calculating 32 bits out for the clock, the clock will end in 2038 (the clock rolls over). It’s basically the millennium clock issue over again in UNIX. His arguments completely ignore the fact that 32 bit UNIX could be fixed by resetting the Epoch time to a more recent date. This fix would postpone the 32 bit issue to a much later date. Note that this 2038 issue should actually be affecting us already in 2008. The reason is that new 30 year mortgages and other long term investment or loan situations would already be affected (and miscalculated) because of this problem. I digress.

The problem I have with his consistent commentary about this UNIX issue is that by 2038 we should be using 64 bit operating systems almost exclusively (if not even more bits than that). 64 bit operating systems do not have the 2038 clock problem because the clock variable would be 64 bits in size and the clock’s rollover value would be orders of magnitude larger (tens of thousands of years in the future).

Secondarily, he implies that he has traveled back to get an IBM 5100 (old 70s portable mainframe computer) because of the impending 2038 UNIX problem. I don’t see how the two are related. It’s possible that the original UNIX developers used a 5100 to help develop the original UNIX (or should I say Multics from which UNIX was born). But, Linux and other open source UNIX systems offer ways to recompile the kernel from within itself. So, you wouldn’t need a 5100 to recompile UNIX (unless you’re running the original UNIX developed by AT&T). Who would be doing that in 2036 and why? With Linux, you could fix the issue and recompile the kernel in itself.. and you could do it better and faster on notebook from the 2000s than you could on a computer from the 70s. So, his argument needing a 5100 is rather flawed no matter what ‘special mode’ it offered. Again, why would anyone in 2036 be operating a computer from the 70s? If time travel were possible, why would you choose such an old computer and then why would you go back to the time when it was new? For example, you could pick one up cheap in 1996 from eBay (presumably you could even find one today).

Inconsistent arguments

These inconsistencies, among others, in his time travel tales just don’t make sense and don’t ring true. Granted, his arguments can be excused based on the string theory of time travel (to which he clings). Assuming infinite strings and that you can only travel to strings not your own, then traveling to another string suggests his original timeline may not have developed 64 bit UNIX or any other modern unix flavors. But, that doesn’t exactly jibe with his 2.5% string divergence argument. Not developing 64 bit UNIX indicates a lot more than a 2.5% divergence. Note that Titor claimed he jumped to our timeline because the divergence from his own timeline was no more than 2.5%.

But, that assumes time travel is possible at all…

For fanciful time travel tales, I suggest watching Stargate SG1. This series had several well thought out time travel episodes that postulated string theory time travel. In these episodes, the series suggested that one timeline could have had such major changes that little was the same as the ‘real’ timeline.

So, John Titor, I’m just not convinced that you did time travel. That doesn’t mean time travel is not possible, it just means I’m not convinced you actually did. After reading through your answers, I’m still unsure of your agenda on the message board so many years ago… that is, unless you were a doctoral or masters student using that 4 month stint as research into your thesis or dissertation. Let’s hope you got an A on it.

5 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. majazi.chatweb.ir said, on July 30, 2013 at 11:27 am

    I don’t leave many remarks, however I looked at a few of the comments on this page Alleged Time Traveler – John Titor | Random Thoughts – Randosity!. I do have a couple of questions for you if it’s allright.
    Could it be simply me or do a few of these responses come across like they are written by brain dead folks?
    😛 And, if you are writing on other online social sites, I’d like to keep up with you. Could you post a list of the complete urls of your shared sites like your twitter feed, Facebook page or linkedin profile?

    • commorancy said, on July 30, 2013 at 8:55 pm

      Thanks for your comment. However, I don’t know whether your name is Ashli or Mathew. I find it kind of odd that the web page you include is to a profile of someone named Mathew, but the email contains Ashli. Anyway, on to your question.

      I haven’t specifically set up a Twitter account yet for Randosity because 160 character limit isn’t really enough to write an article of any value. I also haven’t set up a Facebook page because that’s like setting up a second blog site and I already have plenty of work around here to manage WordPress. I’m also not thrilled by all of the social and privacy issues surrounding Facebook. In fact, I might write a Randosity article on this very topic.

      You can always follow my blog right here by subscribing. Once subscribed, you will receive a notification each time I write a new article. The subscription area is to the right of this article in the side panel.

      Thanks for commenting.

  2. Mick said, on July 28, 2013 at 5:51 am

    I’m very interested in time travel and clicked various you tube links videos of the John Titor story. Immediately after I received emails dated 1/1/1970, which incidentally lead me to here. I’m certain it’s a bug but a strange curious one don’t you think.
    Regarding time travel CERN seems to have the answers and its only a matter of time and of course travel . The answer lies within


  3. Joe Nahhas said, on January 29, 2009 at 10:02 pm

    Einstein’s Nemesis: DI Herculis Eclipsing Binary Stars Solution
    The problem that the 100,000 PHD Physicists could not solve

    This is the solution to DI Her “Quarter of a century” Smithsonian-NASA Posted motion puzzle that Einstein and the 100,000 space-time physicists including 109 years of Nobel prize winner physics and physicists and 400 years of astronomy and Astrophysicists could not solve and solved here and dedicated to Drs Edward Guinan and Frank Maloney
    Of Villanova University Pennsylvania who posted this motion puzzle and started the search collections of stars with motion that can not be explained by any published physics
    For 350 years Physicists Astrophysicists and Mathematicians and all others including Newton and Kepler themselves missed the time-dependent Newton’s equation and time dependent Kepler’s equation that accounts for Quantum – relativistic effects and it explains these effects as visual effects. Here it is

    Universal- Mechanics

    All there is in the Universe is objects of mass m moving in space (x, y, z) at a location
    r = r (x, y, z). The state of any object in the Universe can be expressed as the product

    S = m r; State = mass x location

    P = d S/d t = m (d r/dt) + (dm/dt) r = Total moment

    = change of location + change of mass

    = m v + m’ r; v = velocity = d r/d t; m’ = mass change rate

    F = d P/d t = d²S/dt² = Force = m (d²r/dt²) +2(dm/d t) (d r/d t) + (d²m/dt²) r

    = m γ + 2m’v +m”r; γ = acceleration; m” = mass acceleration rate

    In polar coordinates system

    r = r r(1) ;v = r’ r(1) + r θ’ θ(1) ; γ = (r” – rθ’²)r(1) + (2r’θ’ + rθ”)θ(1)

    F = m[(r”-rθ’²)r(1) + (2r’θ’ + rθ”)θ(1)] + 2m'[r’r(1) + rθ’θ(1)] + (m”r) r(1)

    F = [d²(m r)/dt² – (m r)θ’²]r(1) + (1/mr)[d(m²r²θ’)/d t]θ(1) = [-GmM/r²]r(1)

    d² (m r)/dt² – (m r) θ’² = -GmM/r²; d (m²r²θ’)/d t = 0

    Let m =constant: M=constant

    d²r/dt² – r θ’²=-GM/r² —— I

    d(r²θ’)/d t = 0 —————–II
    r²θ’=h = constant ————– II
    r = 1/u; r’ = -u’/u² = – r²u’ = – r²θ'(d u/d θ) = -h (d u/d θ)
    d (r²θ’)/d t = 2rr’θ’ + r²θ” = 0 r” = – h d/d t (du/d θ) = – h θ'(d²u/d θ²) = – (h²/r²)(d²u/dθ²)
    [- (h²/r²) (d²u/dθ²)] – r [(h/r²)²] = -GM/r²
    2(r’/r) = – (θ”/θ’) = 2[λ + ỉ ω (t)] – h²u² (d²u/dθ²) – h²u³ = -GMu²
    d²u/dθ² + u = GM/h²
    r(θ, t) = r (θ, 0) Exp [λ + ỉ ω (t)] u(θ,0) = GM/h² + Acosθ; r (θ, 0) = 1/(GM/h² + Acosθ)
    r ( θ, 0) = h²/GM/[1 + (Ah²/Gm)cosθ]
    r(θ,0) = a(1-ε²)/(1+εcosθ) ; h²/GM = a(1-ε²); ε = Ah²/GM

    r(0,t)= Exp[λ(r) + ỉ ω (r)]t; Exp = Exponential

    r = r(θ , t)=r(θ,0)r(0,t)=[a(1-ε²)/(1+εcosθ)]{Exp[λ(r) + ì ω(r)]t} Nahhas’ Solution

    If λ(r) ≈ 0; then:

    r (θ, t) = [(1-ε²)/(1+εcosθ)]{Exp[ỉ ω(r)t]

    θ'(r, t) = θ'[r(θ,0), 0] Exp{-2ỉ[ω(r)t]}

    h = 2π a b/T; b=a√ (1-ε²); a = mean distance value; ε = eccentricity
    h = 2πa²√ (1-ε²); r (0, 0) = a (1-ε)

    θ’ (0,0) = h/r²(0,0) = 2π[√(1-ε²)]/T(1-ε)²
    θ’ (0,t) = θ'(0,0)Exp(-2ỉwt)={2π[√(1-ε²)]/T(1-ε)²} Exp (-2iwt)

    θ'(0,t) = θ'(0,0) [cosine 2(wt) – ỉ sine 2(wt)] = θ'(0,0) [1- 2sine² (wt) – ỉ sin 2(wt)]
    θ'(0,t) = θ'(0,t)(x) + θ'(0,t)(y); θ'(0,t)(x) = θ'(0,0)[ 1- 2sine² (wt)]
    θ'(0,t)(x) – θ'(0,0) = – 2θ'(0,0)sine²(wt) = – 2θ'(0,0)(v/c)² v/c=sine wt; c=light speed

    Δ θ’ = [θ'(0, t) – θ'(0, 0)] = -4π {[√ (1-ε) ²]/T (1-ε) ²} (v/c) ²} radians/second
    {(180/π=degrees) x (36526=century)

    Δ θ’ = [-720×36526/ T (days)] {[√ (1-ε) ²]/ (1-ε) ²}(v/c) = 1.04°/century

    This is the T-Rex equation that is going to demolished Einstein’s space-jail of time

    The circumference of an ellipse: 2πa (1 – ε²/4 + 3/16(ε²)²—) ≈ 2πa (1-ε²/4); R =a (1-ε²/4)
    v (m) = √ [GM²/ (m + M) a (1-ε²/4)] ≈ √ [GM/a (1-ε²/4)]; m<<M; Solar system

    v = v (center of mass); v is the sum of orbital/rotational velocities = v(cm) for DI Her
    Let m = mass of primary; M = mass of secondary

    v (m) = primary speed; v(M) = secondary speed = √[Gm²/(m+M)a(1-ε²/4)]
    v (cm) = [m v(m) + M v(M)]/(m + M) All rights reserved. joenahhas1958@yahoo.com

    • commorancy said, on January 29, 2009 at 11:10 pm

      If I’m understanding the DI Herculis precession issues correctly, apparently the visual observations can be more simply explained as that neither Einstein’s nor Newton’s corrected equations took into account negative precession. That is, their equations assumed that the precession would continue in a positive numeric amount. As This Article states:

      “To the rescue may come, they say the “nonsymmetric gravity theory” of John W. Moffat of the University of Toronto (SN: 9/3/83, p. 152). Unlike Einstein’s theory, Moffat’s permits backward precession. The Moffat correction for DI Herculis is -1.40[deg.] per century. Combining that with the classical value yields 0.53[deg.] per century, very close to the observation.”

      Whether or not this binary star system is actually exhibiting negative precession cannot be known. So, these are obviously just theories. Note, I am not a mathematician, so I have no idea if your formulas describe this situation correctly or not. I am also not exactly sure how this binary star discrepancy relates to John Titor or time travel… or how that (your?) formula will break open ‘Einstein’s space-jail of time’ … but, it’s definitely a random thought and fits well with this blog.

      In the spirit of randomness, thanks for your post.

All comments are encouraged under the following rules: Comments will not be posted that contain personal attacks. Personal attacks only serve to degrade your comment, make you seem like a troll, weaken your stance and undermine your points. Please choose your words carefully. Thank you for contributing!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: