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.
Well, fractal or not, something is happening this year with the amount of energy being released. I have not seen this type of energy affecting human behavior since I've been alive. That matches the 2010 timewave chart perfectly, if it is random than so be it. However, I can not discharge it and if nothing major happens by the end of the year than I will dismiss timewave permanently.
That matches the 2010 timewave chart perfectly
Yeah, let me give you the data: it's called common sense.
No man can measure energy down to the wire.
the cosmos gives off energy, earth gives off energy, sun gives off energy, and so on.
Like I said before, add a year to the timewave chart. I said this last year and so far my formulas have been precise.
Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by Cecilofs
No effort has been made here to define novelty or to come up with an independent statement of what are novel events or how to compare events for greater or lesser novelty. That would be a requirement to test the graph.
You list a time period of 50 years and wonder about common themes with recent times?
1. No world wars in recent times
2. I asked about whether or not 1890 was a novel year. Any comments now?
3. No worldwide depression in recent times on the scale of the Great Depression
Originally posted by setAI
however 64 is merely 2^6 and the King Wen sequence is really a sequence of minimum change form step to step- a feedback oscillation of a Soliton would produce harmonics and partials at intervals of 2^n that would additively combine JUST like the Timewave! it would start with 1 then 2 and 1/2 - 4 and 1/4 - 8 and 1/8 - 16 and 1/16 - 32 and 1/32- and of course 64 and 1/64 and so on- but only the first few would really shape the overall wave shape- but it would look quite similar to the Timewave- which is just the additive sixth harmonics based on the King Wen sequence- so McKenna's Timewave is PART of the larger Timewave that includes the additive sum of all the harmonics/partials of 2^n
Originally posted by stereologist
Here are the weaknesses:
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.
Originally posted by Cecilofs
Ok I really didn't follow that. Can you simplify that a little?
1- the Timewave IS a fractal function- it's output is recursively fed back into the simple additive wavefunction to build a wave with self-similar waveshapes at every scale
2- for McKenna et al's BOUNDED plot of the fractal function between 10^-44 sec and 10^10 years- the fractal dimension is ~1 - as is ALL fractals that are bounded within a finite recursion
3- for a complete plot of the timewave additive function from ZERO seconds to 10^10 years- the fractal dimension is ~1.1 [ I use Hausdorff dimensions]- why?
why? the completed fractal plot to zero adds infinite pertubation of the 1D waveform so it partially fills a 2D plane- this is an estimate-
you can calculate the true value by going to the wikipedia entry for fractal dimension and then use Wolfram Alpha to do the calculation for the Timewave
also the reason why a curved or kinky line has a higher partial dimension than a straight line is simple- a dimension is a degree of freedom- a straight line has no freedom in the 2nd dimension- but any curved or kinky line must move through the 2D plane- and is longer than a straight line- which means it has more information - and that information comes from movement in the 2nd dimension- this should make the concept easy to understand for those with no math training
4- the selection of the King Wen Sequence by McKenna was not arbitrary nor is the sequence itself-
5- it is silly in 2011 to accuse someone of lying or being in error about a simple mathematical concept anyone can google or wiki- because it has been years since I dealt with fractals I actually CHECKED my definitions and estimations on fractal dimension before I posted- and rechecked them- if there were any errors I would have corrected them MYSELF- so the accusation is moot
no one believes your smears-
anyone can check my statements for themselves-
just shut up- you are only embarassing yourself now-
and YOU are the one breaking forum rules with accusation of lying and insults- we all know your stripes: troll