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.
Originally posted by Zagari
reply to post by MrXYZ
Oh what a surprise! I've seen this video today and I can say that is REALLY BADLY explained...Poor debunking...The person who did this video was not enough informed about Timewave Zero...
You neither,,,
( didn't you read page 121-122? Timewave Zero can't be called a hoax, and of course it cannot be called this way, because we are not in 2013 YET, if people do realize ).
December 21 2012 does correspond to August 6 1945 on a new kind of calculation, and is not a casual choice...
He didn't choose the date at random...He changed the calculations and I can say it is truly the best fitting with events in history.
You probably weren't here on June 25 2009, October 7 2008, February 7 2009, January 12 2010 and February 27 2010 when on this website, the Timewave research was going on with amazing results...
Those dates are indicated on the graph...
Check out the thread of ATS " Timewave Zero: the falacy " and read the explanations of the member Evasius...
Timewave Zero can't be debunked until Christmas 2012...
That's it actually.
Sometimes I find it tough to believe in it, but it may actually happen.edit on 27-11-2010 by Zagari because: (no reason given)edit on 27-11-2010 by Zagari because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Zagari
reply to post by MrXYZ
Listen. at the start of the research Evasius said a very novel and global event would happen on June 25 2009, and it DID happen.
Another one said that a big event involving economy would go huge on October 7 2008. If you don't know, that's when the recession started, on THAT day.
The math is not arbitrary, and if you want SHOW HOW IS arbitrary. I posted the math of the graph on page 122 for all people to see...
I hope you're a math expert and you can explain to us how it fails...
Geez, the debate with Stereologist wasn't enough? Now I have to debate with you?
Dude, the debunking in the video is POOR. You should really read Evasius explanations...
" Dismissing a theory without further and COMPLETE research is example of acute ignorancy " that's what Einstein said.
The graph is in free-fall and world war 3 is about to begin...That attack in South Korea was one of the big events we will see until January 2011...
On November 17 2010, Cern trapped anti-matter...
I don't know what it comes for people to do their homework, and see that those dates work...
I hope first non visual contact with aliens happens on January 17 2011...
I won't change my opinion about the validity of the Timewave at least until June 2012...
And anyway, telling people nothing is going to happen in 2012 is of course, a prediction too.
Originally posted by Zagari
Show me the evidence to debunk this:
Mathematical analysis of Timewave Zero function
From a mathematical point of view, it is a fractal function where each point is calculated as the sum of a doubly infinite series.
Let v(x) be a function equal to 0 for all x minor than B and whose value is always finite (minor than a given C).
Having defined such a function, we can define its "fractal transform" this way:
Timewave Zero function is the "fractal transform" of a saw-tooth function.
Consider this list of 384 values derived from a transformation of "King Wen Sequence":
0, 0, 0, 2, 7, 4, 3, 2, 6, 8, 13, 5, 26, 25, 24, 15, 13, 16, 14, 19, 17, 24, 20, 25, 63, 60, 56, 55, 47, 53, 36, 38, 39, 43, 39, 35, 22, 24, 22, 21, 29, 30, 27, 26, 26, 21, 23, 19, 57, 62, 61, 55, 57, 57, 35, 50, 40, 29, 28, 26, 50, 51, 52, 61, 60, 60, 42, 42, 43, 43, 42, 41, 45, 41, 46, 23, 35, 34, 21, 21, 19, 51, 40, 49, 29, 29, 31, 40, 36, 33, 29, 26, 30, 16, 18, 14, 66, 64, 64, 56, 53, 57, 49, 51, 47, 44, 46, 47, 56, 51, 53, 25, 37, 30, 31, 28, 30, 36, 35, 22, 28, 32, 27, 32, 34, 35, 52, 49, 48, 51, 51, 53, 40, 43, 42, 26, 30, 28, 55, 41, 53, 52, 51, 47, 61, 64, 65, 39, 41, 41, 22, 21, 23, 43, 41, 38, 24, 22, 24, 14, 17, 19, 52, 50, 47, 42, 40, 42, 26, 27, 27, 34, 38, 33, 44, 44, 42, 41, 40, 37, 33, 31, 26, 44, 34, 38, 46, 44, 44, 36, 37, 34, 36, 36, 36, 38, 43, 38, 27, 26, 30, 32, 37, 29, 50, 49, 48, 29, 37, 36, 10, 19, 17, 24, 20, 25, 53, 52, 50, 53, 57, 55, 34, 44, 45, 13, 9, 5, 34, 26, 32, 31, 41, 42, 31, 32, 30, 21, 19, 23, 43, 36, 31, 47, 45, 43, 47, 62, 52, 41, 36, 38, 46, 47, 40, 43, 42, 42, 36, 38, 43, 53, 52, 53, 47, 49, 48, 47, 41, 44, 15, 11, 19, 51, 40, 49, 23, 23, 25, 34, 30, 27, 7, 4, 4, 32, 22, 32, 68, 70, 66, 68, 79, 71, 43, 45, 41, 38, 40, 41, 24, 25, 23, 35, 33, 38, 43, 50, 48, 18, 17, 26, 34, 38, 33, 38, 40, 41, 34, 31, 30, 33, 33, 35, 28, 23, 22, 26, 30, 26, 75, 77, 71, 62, 63, 63, 37, 40, 41, 49, 47, 51, 32, 37, 33, 49, 47, 44, 32, 38, 28, 38, 39, 37, 22, 20, 17, 44, 50, 40, 32, 33, 33, 40, 44, 39, 32, 32, 40, 39, 34, 41, 33, 33, 32, 32, 38, 36, 22, 20, 20, 12, 13, 10
King Wen Sequence
These numbers provide the basic numerical values used in the definition of a w(i) function, defined as the i-th value of this set, using zero-based indexing:
w(0)=0, w(1)=0, w(2)=0, w(3)=2, w(4)=7 and so on.
In order to extend w(i) to values of i greater than 383, we can simply define a new function W(i)=w(i mod 384) where i mod 384 is the remainder upon division of i by 384.
Thus for example W(777)=w(777 mod 384)=v(9)=8.
Note that W() is a discrete function defined only for integers, not for all real numbers: in order to extend it for any non-negative real numbers x we can easily define a new v(x) function as the linear interpolation between the values W(int(x)) and W(int(x)+1), where int(x) is the integral part of x. Formally, v(x) is defined as:
v(x) = W(int(x)) + (x - int(x)) × (W(x+1) - W(x))
Timewave Zero function is the fractal transform of v(x) using a=64, divided per 64^3:
where x = time in days prior to 6 AM on the zero date. Thus the value of Timewave Zero on the zero date is:
t(0) = f(0) / 64^3 = 0
The day before the zero date is:
t(1) = f(1) / 64^3 = 0.0000036160151
and so on.
These values are independent of the actual zero date, for which McKenna arbitrarily chose december 21th, 2012.
Timewave Zero function in R-Environment
The analysis of Timewave Zero function is easy with R programming language. This is the definition of W(x) function:
W
Originally posted by SonOfTheLawOfOne
Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by Zagari
I still don't understand why do you need the answer to this, if certain years are novel or not.
I am simply running a test. It rather simple I think.
You listed 1905 as a novel year and even gave reasons. Just wondering about the other years.
You are not running a test. You are trying to trap Zagari into an argument that you think you've already won, and I'm getting a bit annoyed at your lack of willingness to go do some research on Timewave theory and stop trying to pick apart semantics.
Have you read this entire thread, all 120 pages? I have.
Have you watched ALL of Terrence McKenna's recordings that are available freely? I have.
Have you take the time to look at this beyond mathematics? I have.
Do you have any background or understanding in ontology? Probably not.
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.
You coming on to this thread after 120 pages of other people's efforts, spouting "hoax" and claiming you have all of the answers is ridiculous. You sit here and claim that the Timewave has no basis in reality.... really? And you can prove your argument how? Again, you don't have the background in the combined subject areas to argue how the theory has substance or not, you are just simply looking at the math.
If you would have taken the time to understand what Timewave is, you would understand that it has roots in philosophy, numerology, astrology, eschatology, morphogenesis, AND yes, math. 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? (besides polls)
While I'm on my rant, let me ask you this.... what is reality to you? You're saying this has no basis in reality (subjective), but clearly, a LOT of other people feel differently. Well, last I checked with the leading scholars and philosophers of our time (mind you, you aren't one of them), they all pretty much consider "reality" based on the individual's perception of the world around them, inclusive of their own ideas and inspirations. Your perception here is different, so why can't you accept that and move on? So far, I've seen you pick at syntax and semantics, but you are forgetting that there are two sides to this discussion - the science/math and the theory. It's called TIMEWAVE THEORY for a reason, not TIMEWAVE FACT. It's also called THEORETICAL PHYSICS, not FACT PHYSICS. The math stands up until an experiment proves otherwise. I'm willing to bet that you are supportive of much of the standard theoretical physics taught because all of the math looks good. 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? This is what leads to the theories that are further evaluated and reformed as our understanding of "reality" around us changes.
This is what this thread and discussion is for. The math may or may not be correct, but it is still theory and deserves the opportunity to be proven or not. We are all looking for ways to prove or disprove the theory, myself included. However, without having an understanding of the mechanics involved behind the math such as the other areas I've already mentioned, you have no right coming on here and bashing other people for their efforts in trying to better understand it or saying that it's fraudulent.
I often enjoy your threads and find your arguments in the 2012 threads compelling usually. This is one of the times that I'm not impressed. Let me also remind you that a hoax is something that is deliberately created to look like something true with the intentions of being fraudulent. 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. If you still choose to argue your math point, please take it up on another thread. I, and many others, would like this thread to continue to focus on trying to understand the theory and not insulting "hoax" claims over something you have failed to fully understand. Just my 2 cents.
~Namaste
edit on 22-11-2010 by SonOfTheLawOfOne because: typo
Originally posted by Zagari
Check out the thread of ATS " Timewave Zero: the falacy " and read the explanations of the member Evasius...
edit on 27-11-2010 by Zagari because: (no reason given)edit on 27-11-2010 by Zagari because: (no reason given)