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: 153
575
<< 150  151  152    154  155  156 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 05:46 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


Yeah, I agree with Z. Go away dude.

You aren't interested in timewave zero. You aren't interesting to read. Whether or not you are a paid shill is irrelevant.

Your "participation" in this thread is useful only to bump the thread, which isn't necessary, as most of us check it regularly anyway.

Do us a small favor and find something else to do.

Thanks.




posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 06:03 PM
link   
reply to post by joechip
 


Nice to meet another book burning zealot.

So maybe you'd like to supply the simple answer to the question: What is the fractal dimension of the plot?



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 06:15 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


If you were actually interested, I would be glad to discuss fractals and how they relate to TWZ. Indeed if you were actually interested you could find the information yourself in a simple search of TMZ threads...you could try googling Terrance McKenna + fractal time...if you were actually interested.

But we know you aren't, so do go away.

Thank you.



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 06:25 PM
link   
reply to post by joechip
 


So you can't answer the question about the fractal dimension of the plot. No surprise there.

I have other people regurgitating the same nonsense that this is a fractal curve. No one is giving the fractal dimension. If they did they show that it was not fractal.

Thanks for reinforcing my claim that you are nothing more than a book burner.



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 06:38 PM
link   


Thanks for reinforcing my claim that you are nothing more than a book burner.
reply to post by stereologist
 


I'm a few other things. I'm an excellent cook, and a Philip K. Dick fan!

Did somebody burn your book? Did you even write one?

Just so this isn't merely useless banter, I will concede that I am no TWZ expert. Nor am I a scientist or a math guy. Merely interested in the thread. I've been following it since the beginning and more often than not, there's something truly fascinating to find in it. I have a pretty good understanding of the basic principles involved, and that's good enough for me...

BUT...
I find people like you, who come into threads they clearly have no interest in, only to distract and insult, truly repugnant. Why don't you start your own tread, challenging the scientific basis of TWZ, or denying the claims of TWZ? I'm sure you'd find takers, and what's more, you'd be squarely on topic!

Thank you.



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by joechip
 



I'm a few other things. I'm an excellent cook, and a Philip K. Dick fan!
Did somebody burn your book? Did you even write one?

Thanks for the poor response to your demands for censorship. Anyone can see through y our charade. Your just a censorship demanding person trying to defend the ridiculous claims of your silly TMZ.


I have a pretty good understanding of the basic principles involved, and that's good enough for me

Let's start with the basics. The graph is claimed to be fractal. A simple question is, "Is the graph fractal?" Everything is fractal, but many items are trivial in the sense that there fractal dimensions are 0, 1, 2, and 3. The fractal claim is that the graph has a noninteger fractal dimension. Well it doesn't. So in the mathematical sense of the word the graph is no more fractal than a straight line.


I find people like you, who come into threads they clearly have no interest in, only to distract and insult, truly repugnant. Why don't you start your own tread, challenging the scientific basis of TWZ, or denying the claims of TWZ? I'm sure you'd find takers, and what's more, you'd be squarely on topic!

So let's not pretend that TWZ is some sacred cow. It's not. This is a public forum. If you want to find around some TWZ lovers who are afraid of the truth then start your own forum called www,TWZweenies.com or whatever you want.

The fact of the matter is that TWZ is a hoax, a fraud, a made up bunch of malarkey and all that has happened in this thread is called shoehorning. Take Z for instance. He begins with the assumption that the TWZ is correct. Then he represents actual events in a manner consistent with this sacred plot. That is shoehorning.



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 08:08 PM
link   


The McKenna brothers arrived at the 2012 end date by using fractals. Starting from a table of differences between one hexagram and the next, they developed a Mandelbrot fractal in which each level is 64 times greater then the one below it. They then laid this fractal pattern on top of a time scale. The peaks and troughs of the pattern relate to the level of connectedness or novelty in any span of time, whether it covers a day, millennia or even since the beginning of time. By matching the levels of the pattern with key periods in history, they determined it would fit best if the end of the time scale was December 22, 2012.


I believe this may be what you're pretending to be asking about.




The final 80 or so pages of their Invisible Landscape (1993) describe the complicated mathematics and methodology they employed. A base period of roughly 67 years was discovered (all calculations are rough, but not inaccurate). 2012 minus 67 years = 1945, a year of great change 2012 minus 4,300 years (67x64) = 2300 BC, the beginning of historical time 2012 minus 275,000 years (4300 x 64) = the emergence of Homo sapiens 2012 minus 18 million years (275,000 x 64) = the height of the age of mammals 2012 minus 1.3 billion years = the beginning of life on our planet

survive2012.com...

I do not, by the way, support censorship. I just think you are quite obviously a troll. To equate having a problem with a troll, with book burning greatly overstates your importance, contribution to society, and my action of suggesting that you leave, and I have to ask, again, did you write a book?

Thanks.
edit on 8-6-2011 by joechip because: grammar and add link

edit on 8-6-2011 by joechip because: elaboration



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 08:23 PM
link   
reply to post by joechip
 



I believe this may be what you're pretending to be asking about.

No. The lame claim you quoted is ridiculous. It doe s not constitute a description of a fractal and furthermore it does not provide the number which is the fractal dimension.


I do not, by the way, support censorship. I just think you are quite obviously a troll.

Get real. You clearly demand that I leave so that you could foster this hoax. That is censorship.


To equate having a problem with a troll, with book burning greatly overstates your importance, contribution to society, and my action of suggesting that you leave, and I have to ask, again, did you write a book?

So now you want to invoke a straw man argument in an attempt to pretend that you demanded censorship. Sorry, but you are an unrepentent book burner.

The question still stands as it did in November, what is the fractal dimension of this plot?



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 08:26 PM
link   
Do we need to start providing hints to the answer of the fractal dimension of this plot?

After 150+ pages of nonsense no one seems to be able to provide the answer to one of the basic claims to the TWZ.



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 08:44 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


I suggest that you start with McKenna's work, study that, point out any flaws you find in his math...bring them up for discussion in a civil manner, etc.



So now you want to invoke a straw man argument in an attempt to pretend that you demanded censorship. Sorry, but you are an unrepentent book burner.


No, your contention that my suggestion that you leave a thread you have no real interest in and merely hope to be disruptive and combative in is not at all like book burning. It inflates your importance, overstates my action, and really isn't even similar.
It's like an author claiming that a critic's contention that he should give up writing because he sucks is the same thing as book burning. (But even that metaphor is too generous, because at least that terrible writer WROTE A BOOK!) Not at all the same thing.

edit on 8-6-2011 by joechip because: grammar and clarification

edit on 8-6-2011 by joechip because: clarification and addition



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 08:51 PM
link   
reply to post by joechip
 



I suggest that you start with McKenna's work, study that, point out any flaws you find in his math...bring them up for discussion in a civil manner, etc.


I'm asking a trivial question. What is the fractal dimension of the plot?

People are repeating without thinking that the plot is fractal. I am asking the fractal dimension.

Do you know what this means? Do you understand the implications of the question?


No, your contention that my suggestion that you leave a thread you have no real interest in and merely hope to be disruptive and combative in is not at all like book burning. It inflates your importance, overstates my action, and really isn't even similar. /quote]
That's not a very good cover up for your "book burning" intent. You demanded censorship. You can't handle the fact that TWZ is a hoax. You don't want a discussion about the hoax. You don't have to participate.



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 08:53 PM
link   
Is there anyone reading this thread that wants to produce the fractal dimension?

Around this time people should be getting the idea that maybe the answer is that this is not a fractal plot as claimed.



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 09:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Zagari
 


Actually the Australian floods started in October 2010.Our town received unseasonal heavy rain which overfilled our dam which was at about 20-30%.Our sugarcane couldn`t be cut and we were flooded in.Roads were cut and our supermarkets were bare.Then it moved south to Rockhampton and Emerald,then Bundaberg and Brisbane.



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 09:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Zagari
 



The timewave is definitely real...

What a bunch of hooey. This list of comparisons is as ridiculous as the claims of TWZ being fractal.

BTW, what is the fractal dimension of the plot? Figured it out yet. Have all of those links on web solved the problem for you?



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 06:13 AM
link   
Let's ignore him. He doesn't want to inform himself a minimal about this theory , he just wants to select a few people and discharging misinfo after misinfo. His only goal is to satisfie his own ego and drive people away from the subject.

He has no opinion, he claims the you tube video debunking timewave zero ( ALL the comments of that video tell the poster to inform himself about the REAL theory since the you tube poster doesn't understand the basics of the theory and can only shout hoax ) and we all know why he calls this video superb. Because it agrees with his agenda of debunking.

He doesn't even creates a thread with his own debunking of the timewave zero theory because he seems to be unable to correctly debunk the theory, since he is the ONLY ONE IN THE WORLD on the internet that claims the graph is not fractal. He is the ONLY ONE claiming this, apart for his own ignorant fans.

Let's ignore him and he will run to debunk the next 2012 thread since he only stays in 2012 section. Don't feed him with real information. He doesn't want to listen and he doesn't really deserve any real info since he is unable to accept it.

It is my last replie to anything he says. In this thread at least.

From now on I will only update this thread with info that it is concerning the topic, not Stereologist's ego.



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 06:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zagari
Let's ignore him.


seems very immature* zagari.

(replace * with any of the following: abusive, childish, rude, vengeful, admitting defeat, bullying)

'this is my club and i will decide who gets to participate' - wrong response methinks



edit on 9-6-2011 by JohnySeagull because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 07:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by JohnySeagull

Originally posted by Zagari
Let's ignore him.


seems very immature* zagari.

(replace * with any of the following: abusive, childish, rude, vengeful, admitting defeat, bullying)

'this is my club and i will decide who gets to participate' - wrong response methinks



edit on 9-6-2011 by JohnySeagull because: (no reason given)
not that immature. I'd call it common sense. Take a peek at the profile of stereolosist. Nearly every single post is in the 2012 forum, debunking this that or the other. There is barely any other contribution. I've been ignoring his/her posts for ages because of this. Who has this much time in real life, to be such a prominant "debunker" unless you're being paid to do so as a job? Suspicious? You're damn right he/she is. Way too much debunking in 1 subject, to prove everyone as wrong as he/she possibly can, and not enough contribution to a community as a whole.

Hint, goverment stooges everywhere. When you implant people ona site such as this, make sure they don't just stick to 1 topic and hammer it as hard as they can. It will ring bells, and every post will be ignored, from any right thinking person.
edit on 9/6/2011 by Acidtastic because: (no reason given)

edit on 9/6/2011 by Acidtastic because: spelling



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 07:47 AM
link   
i'm not trying to offend but people need to take off the 'blinkers'.

please.



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 08:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Acidtastic
 

I know I should be minding my own business here because my understanding of this whole theory is limited but to just label Stereologist as a government paid debunker is not fair.

Could it be the the good man is just determent to proof a point?

What is the problem with answering the man's question? (the fractal dimension of the plot, whatever that means)

I recognize his determination, I had the same with that whole Webbot debacle. Nobody had to pay me a dime to try and debunk each and every single claim, in every single thread.

Just answer the question..........or is it an impossible question?

Peace



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 08:32 AM
link   
reply to post by operation mindcrime
 


He is the only person in the world that claims this graph doesn't show fractal qualities. He seems to misunderstand what fractal really is.

He doesn't want to show us WHY he believes the graph is not fractal. He doesn't explain his own claim. Why should we listen to him?

He was challenged and answered in November. He only wants to replicate the battle.

We don't want to battle. I personally don't want to dedicate one page of this thread to discuss a person like him.

This thread deserves better than this.

He cannot show us any real FACT that disproves this theory. Really, he can't.

So, let it go.



new topics

top topics



 
575
<< 150  151  152    154  155  156 >>

log in

join