It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Timewave Zero - Countdown to Transition

page: 121
575
<< 118  119  120    122  123  124 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 09:15 PM
link   
reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne
 


A rather pointless post. Since your such an expert why don't you tell me if the years are significant or not.

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?


Do you have any background with morphogenesis? Numerology? Astrology? Eschatology? If you don't have a background in these areas, you have no idea what you are talking about on this thread and your argument is devoid of substance because again, you are picking at one specific point, which is 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.


Tell me, when was the last time philosophy was measured by a number? When was the last time you could measure how people feel about the world today with a mathematical function?

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 measure.


You're saying this has no basis in reality (subjective), but clearly, a LOT of other people feel differently.

Large numbers of people being duped does not make the matter any more correct or incorrect.


It's called TIMEWAVE THEORY for a reason, not TIMEWAVE FACT. It's also called THEORETICAL PHYSICS, not FACT PHYSICS.

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.


The math stands up until an experiment proves otherwise.

That is false. The math does not stand until it is supported by experiment.


Have you also considered that most experiments to prove the majority of theories FAIL because of UNSEEN considerations that people did not have the foresight to know in advance?

That is a nonsense statement. You need to learn what a theory is. You are obviously confused.


The math may or may not be correct, but it is still theory and deserves the opportunity to be proven or not.

Again, learn what a theory is. There are plenty of books to help you. Get over to the library and figure it out.


This is absolutely not the case with Timewave theory, so please be mindful of how you throw that word around as I've also seen you use it on several other threads.

I know what a hoax is and time wave zero is a hoax. PS. It's not a theory.




posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 09:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Zagari
 


The problem is that this graph is being analyzed and compared to a timeline. Why, because McKenna made it up and pretends it is of interest?

I'm not demanding anything more stringent that I apply to real scientific papers. This kind of junk could never get through a peer review process because really hard hitting questions would be asked. I'm tossing softballs compared to what I see in discussions.

All I've heard so far are excuses. Finally I was shown how the graph is plotted. I'm not really concerned that it was inappropriately labeled a fractal curve. It isn't, but so what.

The real question is whether or not this graph reflects reality. You have tried to compare different time periods that are supposed to have the same pattern or whatever you want to call it. That makes no sense unless you have a means of verifying the graph.

haven't there been predictions that a date are going to significant? How do you decide a day that is supposed to be significant is in fact significant? The day comes and goes and you look over the news and you find something there and you ask yourself, "Was that significant?"

Are there going to be continued excuses?



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 11:18 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


The post was pointless? Where do you live? In your skeptic bubble? Well, you better wake up before the world launches softballs to you, man...
You are not going to tell us the big answers about the world either, so, you're no better than this theory.

Anyway, to decide if a day is significant, in Timewave terms, I look to the global reaction to an event, how much the event was viewed around the world, and if the event follows my historical repetitions timeline...That is now set on 1880 and August 1943...

Again, a novel day is a day when a event is globally recognized as significant, in which technological breakthrough and crucial decisions are made, public or NOT public...
And those days where in the news appears the phrase " Never seen before ", " Never witnessed/ never done/ never achieved before ".
A novel day is a novel resonance to a historical event...
A habit day is a almost exact resonance to a historical event...

At this rate, the only people that will be " melt by zero date event " ( definition of Mckenna ) will be the skeptics that deny everything and live in their dogma-town bubble...
All the other people, even the people working in Mcdonalds will be already aware of the changes...
Minus the skeptics...

Again, you probably don't have all the required backgrounds, as the other poster said, to continue bashing this...And I dare say...Research.



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 11:23 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


Show me , with explanations, how Timewave theory DIS- agrees or --- agrees --- with philosophy, numerology, astrology, eschatology, morphogenesis...
Show me how you define all those things...

P.S. " Oh, wait, you probably think philosophy, numerology, astrology, eschatology and morphogenesis are NOT connected to reality, right? "
Yeah, because only science definitions, math, meteorology, what science knows of death and skepticism are based on reality, right? Anything that goes out of those things is not connected to reality...Right?

Philosophy is full of old ways of seeing the world, numerology is non- sense, astrology is too much vague and also non-sense, eschatology is too much near to religion to be considered by a skeptic and morphogenesis is almost unknown to most of people and probably non-sense.
This is what you probably think.

Many and many and many people would be able to tell you that you'd wrong to dismiss all of those things.

You are like a student that always gets A, but he only reads what has been discovered by all those people that went against the stream and what people thought and they discovered things we couldn't even imagine.
Don't dare tell me that if you lived before the discovery of virus you wouldn't have been a person skeptical toward something that exists and cannot be seen: virus, bacteria and such.
People thought outside the bubble and made the discoveries...
The skeptics never made discoveries, they only use other people's knowledge to deny everything weird or to debate with other people.

I guess if this is not answered, is strike TWO.
edit on 23-11-2010 by Zagari because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-11-2010 by Zagari because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 11:55 PM
link   
How Timewave is related to philosophy, numerology, astrology, eschatology, morphogenesis...

Philosophy: Timewave theory, above all Novelty/habit theory is clearly a philosophical idea that states that everything in the world could be considered a sort of fight between Novelty and Habit, where Novelty struggles are destined to prevail agains Habit.
Novelty is creativity, increasing complexity and technological breakthrough.
Habit is the raw, primitive side of humanity where war prevails and also the side of humanity that brings humanity to follow certain traditions and rules, included religions and social limitations toward all the behaviors that are connected to novelty ( revolutions, new kinds of societies, even gay behavior and such ).
Since nature is thought to prefer novelty, is a natural fate for novelty to increase exponentially, and habit to be cancelled, wiped out of the world.

Numerology: The theory is also a numerological formula based on a sum of numbers that defines the amount of novelty contained in every day, and historical period from the beginning of the universe to 2012.

Astrology: The graph seems to agree with astrological timeline, above all, novelty is shown to increase when unusual astrological transits occur and Pluto- generations shift to the next one.
More, the graph seems to be connected to the behavior of our Sun and to meteor showers appearance near to Earth.

Eschatology: basically, history, according to Mckenna was a result of the existance of the eschaton at the end of time, and history had a meaning and the real --- resolution and completion --- of history will be in 2012.
The eschaton is the teological attractor, the object that waits for us at the end of time.
Mckenna called it a black-hole of time...Its " gravity" attracts us and we must and we will be getting contact with the object.

Morphogenesis: Timewave theory is connected to the natural evolution of global consciousness in the means of increasing complexity, increasing information ( the universe reveals itself to people, and basically, to itself ), and humanity will have to change, morph into " something else " to be able to adapt to the things that the attractor will bring to us.
Humanity has to achieve transformation to adapt to the change of time...
Mckenna believed that the universe is in constant evolution and the rest of the universe's evolution will be completed in the last seconds of that day in 2012.
Also, humanity will achieve more than 60 paradigm changes that will be compared in intensity with agricultural revolution/discovery, technological revolution and such...
13 of them will be achieved in the last second of the graph.
Mckenna also mentioned that humanity is going to getting through a process that could be compared to the birth of a baby and all the feelings that are connected to the change between in-uterus-life and birth.

Timewave Zero theory changed me: 2 years ago I was a 18 years old boy with poor knowledge of history and philosophy and today I could recite the history from 1800 to 2010 by heart, with dates...
When I was 15 I fell in love with astrology and when I discovered Timewave I completely fell in love with history...

Its weird that at the age of 20 I spend literally most of my time reading history books and websites about the past decades.

Its weird to me, given that in my infancy/adolescency I was growing toward scientifical way of thinking, I was enjoying medicine and biology and Mckenna theories wiped out my previous thinking and I now think that the pinnacle of philosophy was achieved by Mckenna.

Given the existance of virus and bacteria, a whole world in our bodies, why we aren't supposed to believe that aliens or anyway, creatures are in existance, that man will be aware of them only with the help of drugs?
Who knows, maybe there is whole world inside the '___' hallucinations that is --- as --- real as our reality.

edit on 24-11-2010 by Zagari because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 12:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by stereologistI'm not really concerned that it was inappropriately labeled a fractal curve. It isn't, but so what.


Why isn't it?

The whole resonance idea is based on the curve being fractal and so periods relate to other periods with the same shape of graph.

The idea of telescoping of time also comes from the graph being fractal - the sections continually repeat the whole but on a smaller scale.

AFAIK its fractal nature is pretty central to the theory so I am curious why you think it isn't fractal.

www.fractal-timewave.com... - Timewave Zero theory is a fractal function...

First sentence.
edit on 24-11-2010 by Cecilofs because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 05:27 PM
link   
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 of arrogance.

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 subject.



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 measure.


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 or claimed.

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.


the·o·ry
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.

fact
[fakt]
–noun
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 constant??

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

THEORY!

~Namaste


edit on 24-11-2010 by SonOfTheLawOfOne because: typo



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 05:41 PM
link   
Wow. After the (inevitable) failure of the "novel date" to come to fruition, this crap is still being debated?

HPH made their money off of the suckers that subscribed to their pulp-fiction newsletters and now yet another band of fools is rallying the troops to yet another date. Yet another correction. Yet another bunch of b.s.



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 06:59 PM
link   
reply to post by atlguy
 


Timewave is not about doom, the period November 14 2010 - January 17 2011 is EXACTLY the same of August 2 - October 5 1943...
On those dates nothing significant happened, but people like important politicians discussed and decided the invasion of Philippines and the creation of the atomic bomb.

Also , the novelty period is not JUST November 14, is 63 DAYS. It didn't fail, given the Cern news of November 17 and the turmoil in Koreas. And China and Russia dump the dollar today.

Get your facts and come back.

Again, Timewave theory is not doom. Probably nothing will happen on January 17 2011 but the world we will live in, on January 18 2011 will be very much different from the one in October 2010.

Timewave is a theory and needs to go through experiments and such.

I'm fed up of people that think webbot and Timewave are the same, they ARE NOT!

Timewave graph was invented in 1974, webbot came after and they are using same dates of this graph with POOR interpretation.
That is the reason why the webbot fails.
November 14 2010 was only the beginning of the change-window...We have yet to get through January 2011.
As you should know, the real big events come when the graph comes to the bottom, not when novelty period begins.

Read all the 121 pages of this thread before to come back with another attack to our research.

edit on 24-11-2010 by Zagari because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 10:40 PM
link   
reply to post by atlguy
 

LMAO Looks like you’ve missed it. No worries, just try visiting some websites that are not under dark cabal's control



posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 02:53 AM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


It is almost painfully easy to find the complete mathematical formula for the Timewave. Since you continue to ask for it though in this thread, in a quite derisive manner might I add, allow me to google it for you.

If by some divine intervention you are still having trouble locating the formulae, I will hand it to you on a silver platter. If I were you, I probably wouldn't post here again until you understand what is being discussed in the article, as you started out nicely asking detail-oriented questions but found yourself quickly degenerating to the point of actually trolling users and supporting straw man arguments. Not an intellectual way of going about this discussion might I add!

Delinieation, Specification, and Formalization of the TWZ Data Set Generation Process - Philosophical, Procedural and Mathematical: By John Sheliak, Mathematician

Let it be known I respect everyone's opinions regarding the Timewave, so long as your compliments and/or criticism are constructive and informative to the discussion taking place.



posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 07:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Zagari
 


The only ones I see being dogmatic and refusing to test the legitimacy of this TWZ stuff are the believers. This appears to be more religion than anything else.

Skeptics do live in a bubble as you claim. That is rather silly. Skeptics such as myself ask tough questions and what I see here is simply refusal to ponder the basic question of whether or not this TWZ is associated with reality. The repeated digging in and refusal to consider this question is similar to religious fanaticism.

So why is 1880 of interest?



posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 07:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Zagari
 


Trying to start a tangent issue is not the question. Dealing with issues that are immaterial to the question of whether or not TWZ matches reality is just another attempt to dodge the simple questionof whether or not TWZ is connected to reality.

I do agree on one of your points that numerology is nonsense. So what! That is a side issue. The issue is testing TWZ. Does it work?


The skeptics never made discoveries, they only use other people's knowledge to deny everything weird or to debate with other people.

You obviously have no idea what a skeptic is. You think skeptic means scoffer. That is wrong. You also at time seem to think that a skeptic is a naysayer. That is wrong.

Take your virus, bacteria, or whatever tale. If someone were running around claiming that there were invisible little creatures would you believe this person outright without evidence? I'm sure you would just as you've fallen for TWZ hook, line, and sinker. I'd say, show me. Can you show me? If the discoverer were like you they'd be saying, no I won't show you just believe it to be true, because I says so. You would be falling in line without question. I would wonder why the person would not show me. I wouldn't be able to say that they dod not exist, but I would not be able to agree that they exist. But then that is not qhat happened. The discovery was revealed to people by showing them the discovery.



posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 08:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Zagari
 


None of that matters. Just because astrology and numerology are junk does not mean that TWZ is junk. The question is whether or not TWZ reflects reality. The question is open and all you can do is recite some "stuff" about issues that do not support or reject TWZ.

Your youth does reveal itself in your inability to recognize the need to test TWZ to see if it actually works.



posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 08:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by ZagariTimewave is not about doom, the period November 14 2010 - January 17 2011 is EXACTLY the same of August 2 - October 5 1943...


How do you find these resonances? On the software I am using there is a "Resonate Back (Red Shift)" button and when I use that it is telling me that this period resonates with 1878-1890.

If it is 1943 we are resonating with, then I wonder how WWII is being resonated? Possibly in the tensions between China/Russia and the West as well as the ongoing Afghanistan and Iraq invasions. Also what is happening in the US right now is eerily similar to Nazi Germany IMO.

Here are some interesting similarities in events in 1943 and now:

February 27 – The Smith Mine #3 in Bearcreek, Montana, United States explodes, killing 74 men.

A mine in New Zealand has just exploded as well and killed quite a few people.

March 3 – 173 people are killed in a crush while trying to enter an air-raid shelter at Bethnal Green tube station in London.

There have been a few tramplings at large events recently.

April 19 – Albert Hofmann self administers the drug '___' for the first time in history, and records the details of his trip.

This is a big one considering we are in a thread dedicated to Terrence McKenna



posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 08:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Cecilofs
 


Sorry. Just because people repeat this claim does not make it so. The function is not fractal. It does not have fractal properties. Please read about the meaning of fractals and learn that this is not fractal in nature.

sin(1/x) is not fractal

The claim that the function is fractal is just wrong.



posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 08:31 AM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


Have you nothing to say about the actual mathematics from one of the originators of the theory that I posted? Or is this being conveniently ignored to continue to prop up your straw man?



posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 08:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Cecilofs
 


If you check the Kelley graph for the year 1943 you will see its exactly the same of 2010, with a difference.
The 1943 graph and 2010 graph have 104 days difference...
In August 2009, Evasius was made aware of this fact...
Today resonates with the whole day August 12 1943. And two months of early 1880.

( also, the Blantyre mining disaster occured in 1877 )

2009-1942
2010- 1943
2011 - 1944
2012- 1945

Makes sense since the pivotal event was on August 6 1945.


edit on 25-11-2010 by Zagari because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 08:34 AM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


Mckenna said so many times, time is fractal. Timewave graph is definitely a fractal description of time.



posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 08:36 AM
link   
reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne
 



You care not what anyone else has to say about the subject because you are convinced that you're right. Purest of arrogance.

How wrong can you be? Very wrong. I have asked repeatedly for information and people are avoiding the basic question which is whether or not this TWZ function is realted to reality.

The background or supposed derivationof this function is meaningless. None of that matters in asking the question of whether or not the function is assocaited with reality. This reflects your ignorance or purposeful avoidance of a basic question.


You have quite the ego to believe that your knowledge on the subject is above and beyond every single contributor on this thread

A straw man argument. That is immaterial.

The supposed understanding of the material by anyone is immaterial. The simple question is whether or not this works. That is something everyone is avoiding.


so you aren't just insulting my intelligence, you are insulting all of their's as well.

So you think it is insulting to ask hard questions such as a basic question of whether or not it works. Buck up.



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.

I'm not sure how you are unable to understand the simple matter that things need to be tested. Your long winded post does nothing to provide a means of testing TWZ.

I know what a theory is and a fact and I don't need to copy them from some online source.

Instead of pretending to be so knowledgeable, which I doubt, why don't you test me how TWZ can be tested.



new topics

top topics



 
575
<< 118  119  120    122  123  124 >>

log in

join