It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# Timewave Zero - Countdown to Transition

page: 156
575
share:

posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 07:54 AM
The way i understand it is this: McKenna put the I-ching( a chinese divination process) into a computer, and it turned out as a fractal. He then converted it to a linear graph (TWZ), took a section of it, and mapped it over a section of history.
The pattern it produced over the last several hundred thousand years, repeats itself on a smaller and smaller scale, i.e a century, decade, year, month etc etc.

It is fractal.

posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 07:56 AM

Not true. You stated you could not answer the question and another person has posted that I was correct to label the graph as fractal dimension 1. Therefore, the graph is NOT fractal.

One of the latter 2 responses are appropriate, not the first.

That sounds to me like there is no interest here in actually seeing if this TWZ is correct. That has been the essence of this thread for 150+ pages.

posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 08:00 AM

The way i understand it is this: McKenna put the I-ching( a chinese divination process) into a computer, and it turned out as a fractal. He then converted it to a linear graph (TWZ), took a section of it, and mapped it over a section of history.
The pattern it produced over the last several hundred thousand years, repeats itself on a smaller and smaller scale, i.e a century, decade, year, month etc etc.

It is fractal.

You claim it is fractal, then what is the fractal dimension?

The repetition is over time, not within each segment of the graph. If you zoom into the graph all you see after a short while is a straight line. You should not be able to do that with a true fractal.

Hence this is not a fractal. It is not space filling beyond fractal dimension 1.

posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 11:20 AM
This thread has no sense anymore. Everybody should be on his/her own; posters in this thread are strongly declining, new posters declining, regulars ( apart from a few, maybe 10 or less ) long gone from the thread, lots and lots of " stereologist dedicated pages ", one page for every word we say...

Today is 2 years exact since the creation of this thread. But now the situation is pretty much exhausting.

I'm going to have a very busy summer with a new job and than I will leave for weeks for vacation, probably without taking with me the computer.

edit on 16-6-2011 by Zagari because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 01:34 PM

So Zagari, do you understand now that the plot is not fractal?

posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 05:46 PM

Originally posted by stereologist

THAT IS WHY IT IS A THEORY IN DEVELOPMENT!

This is not a theory. It is not based on facts. Theories explain facts.

It's been a while since I've posted on here but I couldn't hold my tongue (err, fingers) on this one....

Theories explain facts??? Since when???????????

Note sure where you got your scientific degree from, but it explains a lot about your understanding of the world and your misunderstanding of Timewave. Facts explain facts. Once a theory has arrived at a hypothesis, and it can be proven or disproved based on experimentation, does it become a fact, and even then, it can often be changed and facts can be re-written.

the·o·ry
[thee-uh-ree, theer-ee]
–noun, plural -ries.
1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.

It seems to me that you don't understand the difference between Timewave Theory and Timewave Facts. You should get YOUR facts straight before you come on the thread knocking others.

I've watched you come on here with your armchair math and strawman arguments, and it is now painfully obvious that you have no clue about the scientific method and how it works, even though you project to others that you do.

While this is off-topic, I feel it is relevant for you to understand that you are wrong about this subject....

McKenna started this whole thing with a question... which is how the scientific method begins. He then proceeded to gather facts and build a mathematical representation of HIS understanding of the question he asked, which is the next step in the scientific method. He then started to create a predictive model based on the mathematical representation and facts he had gathered to produce a hypothesis that would explain and possibly measure the answer to his question, which is the next step in the scientific method. THE LAST STEP IN THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD IS TO CONDUCT AN EXPERIMENT TO PROVE OR DISPROVE THE HYPOTHESIS. This is an iterative process as new facts present themselves and existing ones are changed. Some experiments take a few minutes to prove or disprove something, others can take years, decades or even centuries. Your level of arrogance is undeniable to anyone who has read this thread since we can all see that you believe you have outsmarted every other person who has ever explored McKenna's THEORY and attempted to conduct their own experiments that might prove or disprove the theory.

What experiments have you conducted? A play on words and numbers??? That is not the scientific method, just a wicked display of ignorance and arrogance. You ask if others have developed a way to measure novelty... that is the experiment that is needed to prove or disprove the theory and is what several people are working on. In science, there are multiple paths that arrive at the same conclusion, and this is what is happening with Timewave. People are looking for ways to prove or disprove the theory with experimentation, and there is no ONE way that is the right way to test the theory. I think this is where you have a complete misunderstanding of the process and where the conversation diverges between you and others.

Whether Zagari or others are right or wrong is not your place to say without having conducted your own experiments that prove or disprove the hypothesis, and at least they are attempting to test the theory through experimenting with different ideas whereas you expect us to just take your word for it that we are all wrong and you are right. You prefer using semantics to burn someone for your own plight, and as I have said to you before in other posts, you sound smart and would get a lot more credibility if you changed your approach. I will trust the math of a chaos theory mathematician over yours any day of the week, so until you have something much more concrete that can put the hypothesis to rest, you should move along to another topic that you have a stronger foundation of to debate.

Believe what you want Stereo, but it's people like you who give science a bad name and you should leave the people here alone because you add little value to the topic and I don't believe anyone on this thread cares what you have to say or wants to hear from you, but that is just a THEORY of mine.

Have a great day!
Perhaps you'll experiment with my theory and see how effective it is for you to continue posting, then you can create your own theory to explain the facts.

And please, don't try to draw me in to another endless stream of rebuttals because I am not going to bite. When you bring something with more substance to the table, then maybe you and I can have a rational and logical debate, otherwise, I don't see that happening unless you do some serious soul searching and come to grips with your massive ego.

~Namaste
edit on 16-6-2011 by SonOfTheLawOfOne because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 08:43 PM
I explained with facts that TWZ IS a fractal but it has no meaningful fractal dimension- a fractal DOES NOT have to be fully carried out to be a fractal function- if you did carry out the 64x compression of the damped oscillation wave indefinitely you WOULD get the full fractal plot of the TW function- and it would have a low but meaningful Fractal dimension around 1.1- but THERE IS NO NEED to do this since you would be computing the fracal function beyond the grain of the Planck scale-

also- the timewave is NOT fractal dimension of 1- anyone who has studied even basic Mandelbrot/Julia sets knows that ONLY A STRAIGHT LINE has a fractal dimension of 1- any kinks or curves adds infinitesimal fractal dimensionality-

this 'stereologist' character is getting sloppy from his rancor on this topic- those who debate against facts lose their whole argument- I don't think TWZ is a true theory either- but I actually know what I am talking about and can appreciate it's beauty and creativity- if it is wrong it is probably only off in some small way- or we cannot properly measure the novelty [or activity] it tracks [I think it tracks the raw number of quantum observable events that are connected into the whole planetary network of conscious observers]

pseudoskeptical gainsaying avails you nothing stereo- especially when you attack people with LEGITIMATE skepticism of the theory
edit on 16-6-2011 by setAI because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-6-2011 by setAI because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-6-2011 by setAI because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-6-2011 by setAI because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-6-2011 by setAI because: sp

posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 09:52 PM

Theories explain facts??? Since when???????????

Since the development of the scientific method.

Facts explain facts. Once a theory has arrived at a hypothesis, and it can be proven or disproved based on experimentation, does it become a fact, and even then, it can often be changed and facts can be re-written.

Excuse me while I say duhhh. Both of us are providing simplistic explanations.

It seems to me that you don't understand the difference between Timewave Theory and Timewave Facts. You should get YOUR facts straight before you come on the thread knocking others.

Thanks for the pedantic and irritating blah, blah, blah.

All you are doing is pointing out the difference between a wild eyed guess, the vernacular meaning, and the scientific meaning, Lordy, lordy I believe I am aware of the difference if you are not.

I've watched you come on here with your armchair math and strawman arguments, and it is now painfully obvious that you have no clue about the scientific method and how it works, even though you project to others that you do.

Are you trying to cover up for your own failings? Obviously! I do know the difference even though you may not.

While this is off-topic, I feel it is relevant for you to understand that you are wrong about this subject....

Do you know what a fractal is? Instead of being a bellicose teenage maybe you can tell us the fractal dimension of the plot or show that it is not 1.

Your level of arrogance is undeniable to anyone who has read this thread since we can all see that you believe you have outsmarted every other person who has ever explored McKenna's THEORY and attempted to conduct their own experiments that might prove or disprove the theory.

It's obvious who the ignorant one is. That would be you. There is no measure of novelty, only the shoehorning of events so typical of hoaxers.

Prove me wrong by showing how novelty is measured. Of course you can't do that because this entire exercise is a fraud.

What experiments have you conducted?

I determined the fractal measure of the plot and showed it was 1. Have you done anything other than whine? That would be a resounding no.

[You ask if others have developed a way to measure novelty... that is the experiment that is needed to prove or disprove the theory and is what several people are working on.

If that has not been done, then this is not a theory. Thank you for showing your true colors.

People are looking for ways to prove or disprove the theory with experimentation, and there is no ONE way that is the right way to test the theory. I think this is where you have a complete misunderstanding of the process and where the conversation diverges between you and others.

Once again you tell all what a fraud this is.

Whether Zagari or others are right or wrong is not your place to say without having conducted your own experiments that prove or disprove the hypothesis, and at least they are attempting to test the theory through experimenting with different ideas whereas you expect us to just take your word for it that we are all wrong and you are right.

Clearly, you have never been involved in any scientific work. I don't have to do anything other than to ask questions about the correctness of the methods employed. It is up to the proponents to support this claim, not for anyone to disprove it. That should be know to anyone that has taken middle school science classes.

I will trust the math of a chaos theory mathematician over yours any day of the week, so until you have something much more concrete that can put the hypothesis to rest, you should move along to another topic that you have a stronger foundation of to debate.

It is rather obvious that you have made zero attempt to support the fractal claim other than this vague suggestion with an appeal to authority.

OK. What is the fractal dimension of this plot? I can't wait to learn what ignoramus you are referring to.

Believe what you want Stereo, but it's people like you who give science a bad name and you should leave the people here alone because you add little value to the topic and I don't believe anyone on this thread cares what you have to say or wants to hear from you, but that is just a THEORY of mine.

The name is stereologist, not stereo. There are rules on all forums to not alter the names. If you don't understand this then maybe you need to take a beginner's course in science to learn what stereology is.

Perhaps you'll experiment with my theory

You never posted anything amounting to a theory, not even in the sense of a wild idea with no basis.

I don't see that happening unless you do some serious soul searching and come to grips with your massive ego.

Thanks for your typical drive by shooting of no consequence and no substance.

edit on 16-6-2011 by stereologist because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 09:59 PM

I explained with facts that TWZ IS a fractal but it has no meaningful fractal dimension- a fractal DOES NOT have to be fully carried out to be a fractal function- if you did carry out the 64x compression of the damped oscillation wave indefinitely you WOULD get the full fractal plot of the TW function- and it would have a low but meaningful Fractal dimension around 1.1- but THERE IS NO NEED to do this since you would be computing the fracal function beyond the grain of the Planck scale-

This is completely false. The definition of the plot has been provided in this thread and you are obviously talking hooey. There is no limit such as the Planck scale when discussing fractals. This is just malarkey you've tossed in which is meaningless in terms of this being a fractal.

You've changed from 1 to 1.1. Please tell us all how you arrived at this value? I say you lied about the number.

also- the timewave is NOT fractal dimension of 1- anyone who has studied even basic Mandelbrot/Julia sets knows that ONLY A STRAIGHT LINE has a fractal dimension of 1- any kinks or curves adds infinitesimal fractal dimensionality-

Again you lie. Not surprising. Anyone with even basic math knows that is a laughable lie.

but I actually know what I am talking about and can appreciate it's beauty and creativity-

if it is wrong it is probably only off in some small way- or we cannot properly measure the novelty [or activity] it tracks [I think it tracks the raw number of quantum observable events that are connected into the whole planetary network of conscious observers]

It is a fraud, a hoax, a silly parlor game at best.

posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 10:41 PM
>This is completely false
> ...you lie

I don't post errors as a rule- I have provided clear and correct explanations of the Timewave Fractal and it's dimension- anyone can check my definitions and figures and verify them against the pathetic attack

you are just frothing at the mouth at this point- I have udergraduate degrees in computer science and mathematics and tutored math professionally as a student- and you try to accuse ME of not knowing math- even with the clear and easily checkable explanations I provided- yet earlier you actually stated that the timewave shape was based on ARBITRARY data- yet it is well documented that it is based on the differences in the King Wen sequence of the I Ching- you are saying the I Ching is an arbitrary sequece! there is a whole FIELD of Scholarship for the I Ching and the nature of the King Wen sequence is well studied- it is a very specific arrangement- this shows anyone that you are just lobbing turds - there is no rational justification for your silly attacks-

even though THERE IS shoehorning obviously going on- you are so blinded by your irrational stance against TWZ that you do a disservice to your own motives- no one is going to listen to you when you make such obvious errors- why not respectfully probe the shoehorning of events instead of trying in vain to slander the basis of the theory itself? address the ACTUAL weaknesses-

to everyone else- I posted a pretty straightforward and accurate accounting of the Timewave's fractal nature- simply wiki the terms and check the entry on fractals and fractal dimension to learn more- don't worry about the usual trollish pathology that follows speculative ideas- use logic and facts- as Terence always said Nature is NOT mute- that is all I will say on the matter

edit on 16-6-2011 by setAI because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-6-2011 by setAI because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 11:17 PM
It seems to me that Stereologist has a bottle of bubbly on ice, just waiting for the day he can say "no more schmucks believe in TW due to me!" He has taken it upon himself, to be the mighty corrector of truth, to right the wrongs, to sit behind the desk and shout "you idiots, you don't get science and I do!" He is a corrector, going into threads based on consciousness and claiming they are science, so he may then point out the flawed science and may make the world safer for.... well for something.

Sadly this is American discourse, deconstructionist behavior is the norm these days, exchange of ideas isn't. Clearly stereologist hates timewave, sees it as rubbish, YET.... instead of spending time learning an instrument, or testing the theories, he keeps harping on the thread about why TW is rubbish. Why? Why does one spend so much time here when it is rubbish? There is no clear logical reason. But, alas he has one, to simply be disruptive. Where he sees devil's advocate, the rest see something that reflects the sad, sad state of our reality.

The system is sound if you understand what it shows, if you set up a strawman, as he has that says "timewave predicts the future" then say "ha, see it doesn't, you don't get it at all, or get what TM's life was about. It isn't about predicting the future at all, it is about the changes in consciousness, and periods where changes that naturally occur can be accessed to advance your awareness, the reality in front of you may show that change too, or it may not.

Those who put of the amazing graphs of the days and weeks over the last two years I thank you so much, the effort has helped myself and countless others - through me, access some superior energy as a result of the graphs and what the show. THANK YOU AGAIN.

To Zagari, who kept the thread alive for sometime, I hope that it, and some of the more civil contributions to the thread, helped you evolve. As a young person, the reality we live in is rough, the changes we are all experiencing - changes reflected in TM if you care to look, are happening so fast that at times, being young may seem more of a burden then a blessing.

Stereologist has turned the thread into an argument about things that simply have nothing to do with what Terrence was after, but I don't expect him to actually understand those things either as he hasn't increased his awareness enough to fully grasp the efforts TM embarked on. Maybe one day, the awareness will increase to the point where the obsessive, "I told you so" stuff will appear as the burden it actually is.

Sadly though, he has won. I am now unsubscribing from the thread, leaving it for good as there is no point. Stereologist, crack that bubbly, you have won my friend, you have finally, after two years, shut this rubbish thread down for me. Celebrate, the goal has been reached in at least one case.

posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 06:04 AM
you lie.

no you lie.

damn lies.

every truth is but a half truth.

posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 12:01 PM

I don't post errors as a rule- I have provided clear and correct explanations of the Timewave Fractal and it's dimension- anyone can check my definitions and figures and verify them against the pathetic attack /quote]
Tsk, tsk. You attempt a rather pathetic lie by claiming any line not straight is more space filling than a straight line. Can you provide a link to support this pathetic claim?

Can you explain why you went from a value of 1 to a value of 1.1?

you are just frothing at the mouth at this point- I have udergraduate degrees in computer science and mathematics and tutored math professionally as a student

Frankly, you get an F for your understanding of fractals.

yet it is well documented that it is based on the differences in the King Wen sequence of the I Ching- you are saying the I Ching is an arbitrary sequece!

The decision to use a particular sequence is arbitrary. That has no bearing on the source of the sequence. You do claim to have an understanding of math, correct? You claim to understand English, correct? So what is your problem in not understanding that the selection was arbitrary?

you are so blinded by your irrational stance against TWZ that you do a disservice to your own motives

Another straw man argument of no value.

no one is going to listen to you when you make such obvious errors/quote]
More pointless off the mark commentary.

I have and you seem to be trying to do your best to avoid your horrible mathematical mistakes:
1. Claiming that the plot has both a 1 and a 1.1 fractal dimension.
2. Claiming that a curved line is more space filling than a straight line.

Here are the weaknesses:
1. The plot is not fractal. It has a fractal dimension of 1.
2. There is no way to measure novelty.
3. There is no statement of how events affect novelty.
4. There is no means of independently calibrating the plot.

So now we are left with your ability to show how you calculated the fractal dimension of 1.1. I believe you made that number up because you have no idea how to calculate a fractal dimension.

posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 12:09 PM

Clearly stereologist hates timewave, sees it as rubbish

Hate is a rather strong term. I'm simply pointing out the nonsense claims and asking people why they are spending 150+ pages of time shoehorning events to match this plot.

Why does one spend so much time here when it is rubbish? There is no clear logical reason.

Logical is an odd term to use. What you mean to say is that in the short time you wrote your post you took no time at all to consider any issues.

Stereologist has turned the thread into an argument about things that simply have nothing to do with what Terrence was after/quote]
So you take everything hook, line, and sinker? You don't bother to ask simple questions about whether an idea works or not? You just pretend that things work?

The only win would be for people to realize that shoehorning is not research. To win is to get people to understand that ideas such as this need to be examined for correctness. Has that happened? No.

posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 12:16 PM
The timewave date is wrong....period.

If you look at what's going on in the world, how people's attitudes are changing, earth changes, etc.. You will see that the timewave chart is off by one year. Look at 2010 chart and compare it this year. Instead of 2010 it should of read 2011. Look at the behavior of our race since April. Feel how the energy is pulling on our emotions. I don't know what will happen in November of this year, but it looks to be another crash of some sort.

Just add 1 year to the timewave chart...

posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 01:56 PM

Maybe is because the graphs for years 2011 and 2012 are absolutely identical, apart from a difference of 19 days?

I personally believe we will get the final answer and final event in 3 parts: one in early december this year, one soon after Easter 2012, and than at the end of 2012.

For this year, the lowest point is December 3 2011. There is no other lowest point this year before that day.

posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 02:01 PM

All apart for stereologist...
I don't think you will ever find the answer capable of satisfying Stereo.
His goal is destroying this thread.
He will probably win for exhaustion of the members...
I find it hard that he seems to repeat the same things like some sort of machine-poster.

posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 03:52 PM

All apart for stereologist...
I don't think you will ever find the answer capable of satisfying Stereo.
His goal is destroying this thread.
He will probably win for exhaustion of the members...
I find it hard that he seems to repeat the same things like some sort of machine-poster.

There is an answer that I can accept - being truthful.

The TWZ plot is not fractal. Just because a line is not straight does not affect it's fractal dimension. These are truths.

After 150+ pages of shoehorning and not looking to see if TWZ actually works aren't you even curious if this thing works at all? Don't you have even some interest in working out a means of testing the idea?
edit on 17-6-2011 by stereologist because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 03:56 PM

This is getting into insanity...

I have NOT been doing ANY research to prove timewave in 2 years? Are you completely unable to get it int your head???

I'm updating this thread with resonances since March 2010 and you tell me I have been doing nothing on here?

I am becoming sick of this thing...

EVERYBODY is reprimanding you and criticizing YOUR behavior lately and you ask me if I'm curious about the timewave? If I want to get real research work for it?

Dude, you are deeply unexplicable to me.

edit on 17-6-2011 by Zagari because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-6-2011 by Zagari because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-6-2011 by Zagari because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-6-2011 by Zagari because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-6-2011 by Zagari because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-6-2011 by Zagari because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 09:33 PM

EVERYBODY is reprimanding you and criticizing YOUR behavior lately and you ask me if I'm curious about the timewave? If I want to get real research work for it?

Dude, you are deeply unexplicable to me.

You've treated the graph as an absolute and simply matched, ie shoehorned, events against the plot. That is not research. The key to this is in your post where you say "resonances." The goal is to provide evidence for this instead of assuming the existence.

Just as TWZ is not fractal, just as TWZ is based on an arbitrary form, just as TWZ is based on an arbitrary alignment, so is this thread based on shoehorning.

top topics

575