reply to post by stereologist
A rather pointless post. Since your such an expert why don't you tell me if the years are significant or not.
I'll humor you just this once, even though I complimented you on your other posts on ATS. Let's start off on how pointless your comment about my
pointless post is. You started off with an insult even though I respectfully asked you if you had taken the time to do the research and you avoided
the question, so I can only assume you haven't. I respectfully asked you to expand your analysis a bit beyond just the math because the theory
incorporates much more than just math. You care not what anyone else has to say about the subject because you are convinced that you're right. Purest
Second, I never once in my posts made a claim to be an expert on anything. What I did claim was to be well informed of the facts that
support Timewave theory
, such as the simple matter of what Timewave theory consists of, which you didn't even bother to look up, let alone try to
understand. The only thing you did was attempt to make me look bad for using "big words".
Calling them that displays your ignorance for the
Are you afraid of a trap? Are you afraid that this nonsense is easily shown to be failure. Are you afraid to have this exposed as nonsense?
Exposed by whom, you? Do you think you're some modern-day McKenna or Einstein with some revolutionary ideas that blow this apart? You have quite the
ego to believe that your knowledge on the subject is above and beyond every single contributor on this thread and the topic in general when you had to
insult other people and ask for the math because you were too lazy to go find it. I've seen you throw the straw man argument out there quite a bit,
but ah, the hypocrisy.... you completely avoided my questions before about whether or not you've taken the time to research the material and instead,
have focused your attack on me personally. Nice diversion from the real issue which is your lack of understanding of the material and failure to
answer the original question of your
background and understanding of the subject matter. This goes far beyond just the math.
I guess that despite your listing of big words you do not understand the simple nature of my question. So be as vain and conceited as you wish to be,
but the nature of my question is not the math. The nature of my question is whether or not time wave zero can be verified. I hope that's not too hard
to understand. Your pretentious commentary is immaterial.
You guessed wrong.... and I don't think I'm the one coming off as being vain and conceited. There is nothing pretentious in me mentioning the subject
areas I did and how they relate to Timewave theory. You are being offensive by suggesting that I'm trying to exaggerate my own intelligence on the
subject by defining for you what areas of study are incorporated into the theory. Call them big words all you want if that makes you feel better, you
still don't understand what they have to do with the subject and probably didn't know anything about what they are or their relationship to Timewave
theory until I mentioned them here. Had you done some research, had you even read through half of this thread, you wouldn't have made such a foolish
comment and made yourself look pretentious instead.
My comments and contributions here have hardly been immaterial but I always appreciate the ad hominem attacks from someone who lacks the character to
dig into the subject matter rather than insulting someone who has.
To answer your question, we are all working on verifying the Timewave theory because the man who came up with it is DEAD and can't enlighten us any
further or answer our questions, so having to first understand where he left off is where others have picked up. Some theories take years, even
decades, before they are proven. We are trying to understand what, if anything, it will take to prove it right or wrong, and still trying to
understand all of the disciplines and variables that make up the theory. If there is a way to verify the measurements on the graph, that is what we
are looking for as well as the underlying factors the drive the points on the graph. Some people here have a strong understanding of math, some
physics, some astrology and astronomy, some history, etc... it's the combined efforts of all of these people that are trying to peel away the layers,
so you aren't just insulting my intelligence, you are insulting all of their's as well.
This statement tells me that this is a hoax, a fraud. You are saying that there cannot be a measure and yet that is what the graph shows - a
Oh? Please enlighten me and everyone else on this forum on how my statement of philosophy being measured equates to this entire theory being a hoax? I
was simply giving you an example of an immeasurable science, one that is well respected for centuries - philosophy, which also happens to be one of
the foundations for all modern day sciences. Please explain how this constitutes a hoax? Again, you are claiming that someone is purposely trying to
deceive others with this theory and that is 100% inaccurate and as far as I'm concerned, lost you any credibility you might have had. To add to that,
I NEVER said that there cannot be a measure for the Timewave graph, so now, you are not only insulting me, you are making things up that I never said
Zagari went as far as to give you the formulas for how the math is determined when you could have easily looked them up or found them out for
yourself... HAD YOU DONE THE RESEARCH
.... and that still wasn't good enough for you, so it's becoming more obvious where your intentions are,
as I mentioned in my last post.
You aren't here to help anyone figure out if timewave theory is legit or not, otherwise you would have come fully armed with a vast knowledge of the
subject matter to prepare yourself for any debate that follows. That is clearly not the case. Your comments thus far show that you are here to assert
your ego and arrogance on anyone who you might be able to belittle because they might
not be as intelligent as you are, but who probably know
far more about the subject than you do. Whether it's to boost your own ego because you have a confidence problem or it's just to earn stars, this
isn't the place for you, but you're free to keep posting and mocking something that you still don't understand and I'm not going to waste my time (or
anyone else's) trying to stop you.
Large numbers of people being duped does not make the matter any more correct or incorrect.
Agreed. But again, you use dupe and hoax in the wrong manner as it relates to this subject. Nobody is trying to fool anyone. This isn't a pyramid
scheme or some MLM trick to get people to donate money to a cause that is purposely fraudulent. That is what I take issue with and why I originally
engaged in this silly banter in the first place.
It fascinates me that you do not understand what a fact is, or a theory for that matter. You might want to look up these terms and get a grasp of
their meanings. This also suggests that you have the same understanding of the other terms you used.
More hypocrisy with your straw man arguments and ad hominem attacks. What fascinates me is your level of arrogance. I have a theory
on how you
got that way, but I don't have enough facts
to prove it right or wrong yet.
noun, plural -ries.
1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting
matters of actual fact.
3. Mathematics . a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.
6. contemplation or speculation.
7. guess or conjecture.
1. something that actually exists; reality; truth
2. something known to exist or to have happened
3. a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true
4. something said to be true or supposed to have happened
Most physics is still conjecture, yet the theories are accepted
, not always established as FACT. There is a difference, such as the measurement
of gravity. Contrary to conventional scientific wisdom, the FACT is that the gravitational constant is not constant, but to make things easier for the
math, it is considered a constant even though experiments have proven that it fluctuates every so slightly. So why do they still call it a
Theories are accepted even when they haven't been proven. Maybe you should pick up a book because perhaps YOU are the one that doesn't understand the
meaning of the words you toss around. Saying the subject areas are "pretentious" and are "big words" are a meager attempt at covering up your
ignorance on the subject.
The rest of your post was just frivolous attacks at me personally and you trying to insult my level of intelligence, and again, you avoid the heart of
the matter which is your lack of understanding of the subject material. You call it a hoax with nothing to substantiate your claims. You say I have no
understanding of what a theory is to avoid addressing what the theory consists of and to avoid looking like a fool for attacking the math and spouting
hoax with not a shred of anything to back up your claims.
You started off saying that the math is wrong... once you got the math, you moved on to why this isn't a theory, and now you're attacking other
contributors. The more you continue to do this, the more asinine you look. If you have something useful to offer in the discussion, fantastic, I
gladly welcome it. However, if your goal is to act like a 3 year old who says "nuh uh" just for the sake or argument with nothing substantiative to
offer in the debate, you'll find your reputation will only diminish, if it hasn't already.
This is not meant to be a pissing contest. I didn't like how you were trying to draw Zagari out into an argument about the math of Timewave, and I
thought it was very egotistical and arrogant of you to come on a thread like this and say the things you have with no background on the subject. Had
you taken some time to look for the math, you would have found it... instead, you rely on others to hand it to you after they have done all of the
work finding it. Once your math argument was diffused, you started with your ad hom comments directed towards me because your math argument couldn't
hold up anymore. Then you start picking apart the meaning of the word theory, and rather than enlighten all of the people you consider
stupid/duped/meaningless with what you think a theory is and why we are all wrong, you exemplify exactly what you attacked me for in the first
place.... being pretentious and trying to sound like you wrote the dictionary definition for the word theory.
I'm not saying Timewave is right or wrong, but that is what I hope to discover with the help of other like-minded individuals. You are obviously not
like-minded, so you should take your comments elsewhere unless you can offer something of more substance to the discussion.
I hope this is the end of this part of the discussion. If you want to continue attacking me, do it through U2U and spare everyone else your ignorance,
arrogance and angst so they can continue to focus on the
edit on 24-11-2010 by SonOfTheLawOfOne because: typo