Originally posted by MrXYZ
Originally posted by Zagari
reply to post by MrXYZ
I spent whole pages in describing my own research you are talking and talking and talking but no one sees you doing something to bring evidence.
That's sad. XD
You are a easy challenger...
Again...what you posted isn't scientific evidence
Do you ask the weatherman for scientific evidence of how they come up with a theory for predicting weather? Do you ask an economist or a nuclear
testing lab to show proof that they are right?
Meteorologists use MODELS that "predict" what POSSIBLE outcomes can take place based on inputs. They do this based on PROBABILITY that "something(s)"
will occur and change the weather and you get a "forecast". It's very scientific even if you don't see it, it uses tons of chaos math in the computers
that come up with the models and they are FAR more accurate than humans could ever be.
Oddly enough, many millions of people have come to rely and in some cases, their lives depend on, these "predictions" of the weather and without them,
many lives would probably be lost. People will make a different choice based on this, which will ultimately effect them in some other way, such as
being late for work or not having enough fire wood, etc.
How is this so different from the Timewave? It uses a complex mathematical MODEL that postulates what the PROBABILITY is for "something(s)" that will
occur and change YOUR CONSCIOUSNESS, or effect your reality and your world as you see it.
Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean you are correct in your assumptions. We have provided the math that is used to come up with the
probability mapped on the Timewave.
What you're failing to understand is that yes, there are tons of events going on all over the world at all times, but it's the ones that are NEW to us
that change our perception of reality. This potential for "newness" is what is the basis for novelty theory. When novelty increases, our conscious
altering experiences increase in the likelihood of happening. When novelty decreases, things go back to what most people see as "normal".
For example... every summer it rains. We know that. Just like we know every winter it snows. I can recall every winter since I was a child and snow
never ever once came past my knees. That means if every year is the same thing, my perception of it and reality of the weather will never change
either. But... if it snows one day and it's up to my neck, I'll never forget that one time and it will change the way I look at weather, rather than
expecting to always have knee high snow, there is the POSSIBILITY it could at some point, be up to my neck again. Thus, my perception of winter and my
reality as I see it, has been altered. This is what the Timewave shows the PROBABILITY for.... the possibilities of what can happen are indeed
endless, it depends on the individual. Does this make more sense?
Now, with knowing this, look at the graph again, and then think about your day to day life. You should begin to notice yourself saying "I don't
remember ever seeing or hearing that happen before".... or "this happens every day, but TODAY, it's different....". Things like driving to work every
day may seem mundane, or NOT novel, until the one time you have an accident. Then you'll be saying "that's never happened to me before!" NO, REALLY?
THAT IS WHY THEY CALL IT A NOVEL EVENT! The Timewave graph shows when the chances of SOMETHING happening are higher.
I personally have explained this dozens of times to people, and as Zagari said, you either can't grasp the idea and don't want to, or you grasp it and
immediately "get it" in a way that allows you to be a better observer and take in the possibility that there is an order amongst all of the chaos. I
can usually tell within 5 minutes of talking to someone which one they are and won't spend more than that if they aren't interested, and if they are,
I'll know and am happy to enlighten them.
This thread is to track the changes until 2012... so far, you have not contributed a single line of useful commentary, neither constructive or
resourceful. All you've done is instigate members into your baseless straw man argument. I hope that you'll either A) disappear into the ATS abyss
somewhere or B) read the thread and be enlightened. There is more than enough information on this thread for you to form a better argument and have a
well-pointed debate. So far, not one person has yet to post a good rebuttal to anything on here. Even people who worked with McKenna that didn't
necessarily believe his theory could not find a way to disprove it, so I challenge you all to start there.
And to follow up: When Zagari talks about resonance, he is referring to past times in history when the graph showed the same period of novelty, and is
referring to what events took place. When he compares them to current events, he is giving you the most likely candidates for big change happening
based on what happened before. It's not a prediction, but obviously, his work is showing that there is something to it.
edit on 11-1-2011 by SonOfTheLawOfOne because:
edit on 11-1-2011 by SonOfTheLawOfOne because: (no reason