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 Cecilofs
Thanks for that SetAI - good to have someone with more math knowledge post.
Can you tell us the Fractal Dimension then so Stereo will shut up? Or if its even relevant?
Originally posted by FermiFluxStereologist asked a legitimate question in my opinion, and regardless of the way in which he handles himself, he deserves an legitimate response.... I would remind whoever this concerns that having a little bit of skepticism is healthy and keeps you on your toes.
Originally posted by shadowland8Interesting stuff, but what happened on June 10 that is similar with that?
McKenna's claim was that TIME is fractal and that the resonances occur on all different scales.
I think your english is really good, but I also think Stereo is playing down your difficulty so that he can use that to his advantage. i.e. If you make a mistake then he can focus on that mistake as though it disproved the theory rather than just you made a mistake. He's cunning that way.
Given how the theory was created - i.e. that it started with a generic pattern of how things change over time
THAT IS WHY IT IS A THEORY IN DEVELOPMENT!
Even though their question has already been answered and they are still saying the same thing...*shakes head*
That is BS. We never said that. I think we can look at events in the world and decide if they are novel or not without linking it to TWZ.
Comparing it to the graph is to check the validity of TWZ. Novelty theory is one idea, TWZ is about trying to graph novelty across time.
You haven't said anything about what we've been talking about in terms of recent history compared to 1890s-1920s. Industrial Revolution, depressions, World Wars, rise of tyrannical powers. Tell me, do you see these themes repeating in recent times?
This means that there is CHANGE (novelty) happening in the world.
Is this an interrogatory?
You are clearly a person that even when you DIDN'T provide ANY single little evidence that could make us think this thread is hoax
You cannot give us any evidence that could make this " house of cards " to crumble. ANY!
Cecilofs is answering as best as he can and he is answering your obsessive questions ONCE AGAIN.
Once again we are discussing YOU instead of this thread.
You belittled me everytime you had a chance. I'm fed up with your behavior.
NB: I created a thread for " timewave zero debunkers wanna try ". You DIDN'T replie once. Why? Because you are not able to find a way to debunk the theory yet.
the true essence of any fractal set mathematically is that it is the result of a SELF-SIMILAR RECURSIVE ALGORITHM that takes a function and continuously applies the same function onto it's own output- TWZ does this by taking the waveform produced by the differences in the damped oscillation shape of the King Wen Sequence of the I Ching and recursively applies classical additive wave mechanics on the output wave to the limit of observation in scale- this results in a TRUE fractal
for example a 1 D line has a fractal dimension of 1- but if the line curves and zig-zags in the 2D plane it actually starts to fill in the plane like using a crayon to fill in a 2D shape-
we do this with fractals because their recursive complexity when carried out indefinitely makes an N dimensional structure so kinky it virtually fills in an N+1 dimensional space-
in the case of the Timewave- fractal dimensions are pretty irrelevent since the recursive fractal is NOT performed indefinetely
so the Timewave's fractal dimension is low- like 1.00000000...0000001 - with infinite zeros
when you see the timewave plotted on a computer it is not a real line because the line is drawn with 2D pixels- the line actually has NO width - so a line must have infinite kinks in order to have any meaningful fractal dimension
We are not cherry-picking at all. We are explaining the real theory and what is based on, that is , history and technology and the conflict between habit and novelty.