It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by stereologistThe 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.
Fractals can also be classified according to their self-similarity. There are three types of self-similarity found in fractals:
Exact self-similarity – This is the strongest type of self-similarity; the fractal appears identical at different scales. Fractals defined by iterated function systems often display exact self-similarity. For example, the Sierpinski triangle and Koch snowflake exhibit exact self-similarity.
Quasi-self-similarity – This is a looser form of self-similarity; the fractal appears approximately (but not exactly) identical at different scales. Quasi-self-similar fractals contain small copies of the entire fractal in distorted and degenerate forms. Fractals defined by recurrence relations are usually quasi-self-similar. The Mandelbrot set is quasi-self-similar, as the satellites are approximations of the entire set, but not exact copies.
Statistical self-similarity – This is the weakest type of self-similarity; the fractal has numerical or statistical measures which are preserved across scales. Most reasonable definitions of "fractal" trivially imply some form of statistical self-similarity. (Fractal dimension itself is a numerical measure which is preserved across scales.) Random fractals are examples of fractals which are statistically self-similar. The coastline of Britain is another example; one cannot expect to find microscopic Britains (even distorted ones) by looking at a small section of the coast with a magnifying glass.
Possessing self-similarity is not the sole criterion for an object to be termed a fractal. Examples of self-similar objects that are not fractals include the logarithmic spiral and straight lines, which do contain copies of themselves at increasingly small scales. These do not qualify, since they have the same Hausdorff dimension as topological dimension.
Year 1914 (MCMXIV) was a common year starting on Thursday (link will display the full calendar) in the Gregorian calendar and a common year starting on Wednesday in the Julian calendar. It was the year that saw the beginning of what became known as World War I.
Originally posted by operation mindcrime
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?
you've no need to mind your own business, this is a public forum and we're allowed to get stuck in.
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.
Let's ignore him
From now on I will only update this thread with info that it is concerning the topic, not Stereologist's ego.
I'd call it common sense.
Hint, goverment stooges everywhere.
I'd call it common sense.
Hint, goverment stooges everywhere.
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.
This thread deserves better than this.
He cannot show us any real FACT that disproves this theory. Really, he can't.
If you actually wanted to prove this rather than just belittle us and disrupt the thread, then you would be observing world events, comparing them to the Timewave, looking up the resonances and then posting about the ones that didn't match. Then we could engage in meaningful discussion about the validity of TWZ instead of slinging mud at each other.
I haven't yet seen a single post by you (in the thousands you've posted in the 2012 forum) where you have done this.
What you have done (once again) is focus on one tiny, largely insignificant thing that we have said and made that the entire basis of your argument.
Whether or not TWZ is fractal has no bearing whatsoever on its validity.
Here is what I think has happened: You are arguing the 100% correct technical definition of "Fractal" and we are using it in a more colloquial sense to mean more along the lines of "has smaller copies of itself within the graph at different scales".
If you look back a few pages you will see some pictures I posted that prove this - the graph appears identical even though the scale is different. This means the whole graph contains ever smaller repeating copies of itself, which is a quality of fractals, but technically doesn't qualify it as a fractal.
We were wrong and you were right. Congratulations.
I'm not saying that stereologist is a paid debunker, but that is what it looks like to me. The poster spends all day every day debunking 2012 topics. It seems at best, a little obsessive. And at worse, well....I needn't go on.
it wouldn't supprise me one bit if there was a fractal pattern to TWZ
I started getting interesting in Timewave Zero in one of the lowest, more sad periods in my life.
It gave so much hope.
The reality is that Timewave Zero theory makes me HOPE there will be some CHANGE after 2012.
I feel like a stupid telling that but today I realized that is my real feeling.
Everybody treats me like I'm 15.
but given that my parents won't read what I write I often give up
Instead all those people telling me I'm ignorant, telling me all these pages are a joke, we are all a bunch of retards, doesn't makes me feel well.
Originally posted by stereologist
This thread is nothing more than silly shoehorning in which people are treating the plot as a gold standard and pretending events match the curve. Ludicrous.
No can tell if an event is novel or not until they check the curve. That is shoehorning.