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: 157
575
<< 154  155  156    158  159  160 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 09:45 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


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.




posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 10:11 PM
link   
reply to post by bputman
 



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.

So you say "the amount of energy ". So you can measure it? Can you tell us what amount is being released on any given day? How do you measure it? These are important issues in trying to see if TWZ is correct.


That matches the 2010 timewave chart perfectly

Great, so you can put numbers to the plot. What are the numbers and how are you measuring them?

This will make it possible to check the claims of TWZ.



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 10:21 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


Yeah, let me give you the data: it's called common sense.
Sometimes people get so into their books they can not see the obvious even when it stares them in the eyes. My post was not a negative comment towards you and yet you try to act if every calculation has to come down to the wire. No man can measure energy down to the wire. Even with our precise calculators, equations, formulas, or book knowledge, we can not predict the amount of energy being released into this world. It's impossible, since the cosmos gives off energy, earth gives off energy, sun gives off energy, and so on. Irrelevant point to argue.

Like I said before, add a year to the timewave chart. I said this last year and so far my formulas have been precise. Know again I say if nothing happens by the end of the year than I will dismiss the timewave completely.



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 10:34 PM
link   
reply to post by bputman
 


It seems to me that you make claims such as "matches the 2010 timewave chart perfectly' and then you won't try to corroborate the claim. You could have said that you had a wild eyed unsubstantiated dream or other avenue to lead you to a weird claim that something might have looked like something else, yet you chose to say, "matches ... perfectly."

Now you say you just made up some horse pucky. Let's see. Here it is, you wrote:

Yeah, let me give you the data: it's called common sense.

Common sense? Not at all. You claim a match and then you back pedal. I'm not surprised.


No man can measure energy down to the wire.

Quite true. All measurements have uncertainty.

But then you write the following which suggests that you do not understand energy. Energy is not created. Yes, you don't claim it, but energy is transferred. We know roughly the amount of energy received by the Earth and how much is radiated. We know the same for the Sun and many other objects int he universe.

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.

Again that claim of precise. If that were true why are you unable to provide even some means of substantiating your claim. Maybe the reason is that you are a fraud. Is that correct?



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 06:39 AM
link   
reply to post by bputman
 


Something pretty big will happen December 3 2011. It is the end of 67.29 years cycle and beginning of 384 days cycle.
2012 is definitely the final year, not 2011.
You feel these things because that is true, humanity is changing fast, but 2011 and 2012 on the graph are very very similar, only just a few days of difference.
In 2011 the peak happens on March 22 2011, in 2012 the peak happens April 9 2012.
December 3 2011 represents the precursor of December 21 2012.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 11:28 AM
link   
I want to try and change the subject- but first as I said earlier I don't post here very often-I follow the thread to see how people are tracking the Timewave- I only posted to answer the issue of fractal mathematics -

but even after 20 years of usenet/forum discourse I am stll baffled by trolls who taunt with questions like "what is the fractal dimension of the Timewave?" but when definitive and detailed answers are presented they just ignore and dismiss it - it still surprises me after all these years - you cannot rationalize with pathology- that is the lesson!

so that stereotroll can no longer obfuscate this issue here are the FACTS:

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? 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- the I Ching has been known by scholars for thousands of years as an eerily prescient method of divination- and most archaeologists and occult scholars believe that the I Ching began as a kind of calander that also predicted the weather and sociopolitical conditions with uncanny accuracy- so it's selection as a fundamental structure in a theory of Time is not arbitrary- but sensible and rational

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

NOW- let me try to change the subject a little and focus on the rationality of the Timewave withanother old post from another forum:

when I formulated my idea of the Omega Singularity- the self-reflection of the Cosmic Monad- I noticed that in addition to generating a multiverse of algorithmic recursion that the recursion is also in the time dimension- the recurring cycles of the cosmic singularity's self-interaction would lead to acoustic harmonics/partials of that cosmic wavefunction to be embedded in the flow of time as a permutation of the recursion- Terrence McKenna showed that the King Wen sequence of the I Ching had a repeating structure that he then divided into every sixth harmonic [each 64 times longer than the previous] and additively generated the remarkable Timewave-

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-




edit on 18-6-2011 by setAI because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-6-2011 by setAI because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-6-2011 by setAI because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-6-2011 by setAI because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 05:50 AM
link   

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.


We have defined novelty time and time again as best we can. Here, its very simple.

Novel = never happened before/never existed before/increasing complexity/increasing connectedness.

First Phone = highly novel. First mobile phone = quite novel. New iPhone = only slightly novel. BUT in a more novel time overall, so the line will still be closer to absolute novelty. We can only look at these things in relativity as there are no absolute values.

There is no way to QUANTIFY novelty - which is what you are asking for - because current science cannot measure novelty. To even quantify it we'd need a beginning and an end value rather than a relative scale which is what we have. Sure you can say 0% novelty vs 100% novelty, but then how can we tell where we are on the scale?

Instead, we have to rely on our intuition and intelligence, on finding connections that people like you will always denounce as shoehorning. What you propose is only true for a scientific proof of the graph and like I said, its not ever going to happen. I fully accept that and I'm ok with it.


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



It was 30 years but I won't nit pick... All years are novel and novel things happen every year. Yes I think 1890 was a fairly novel year as do I think the end of 2010 to start of 2011 was a novel time period (which is what 1890 resonated with). The latter is still more novel than the former. We've pointed out many times why we think this is accurate, you just continue to call it shoehorning. There's no way we can sway your view on that and vice versa, so can we just call it a truce already?

Dude, we are IN a depression. Right now. Do you not see economies tanking world wide, the US being almost broke and entire countries revolting? Oh wait the effects aren't exactly the same as back then. Why? Because we have the federal reserve banks now, which were created after the great depression to regulate depressions and non-coincidentally are recently getting a lot of negative public attention. Resonance +1!

As for the World War, we are just entering the resonance of that now. Meanwhile, the cyber war is flaring up. Coincidence? Shoe horning? Maybe. Maybe not.

As always, time will tell



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 12:53 PM
link   
Dont worry about the stereo guy bputman. Some people have to have prove of everything, even things they dont understand. These are the same people that get smacked in the face with truths about everything everyday and they choose to ignore it because it makes no sense to them.

Keep ignoring intuition and feelings guys. Make sure you can measure and have proof of everything.

Then..

Wait for the stress to pile on as you try to figure out things we dont understand "yet" atleast.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 05:17 AM
link   

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


Ok I really didn't follow that. Can you simplify that a little? My understanding of what you are saying is the wave repeats itself on smaller scales, so if you "zoom in" on a section of the timewave then it should have smaller versions of itself at smaller resolution. Am I on the right track?

I am interested to hear more about your Omega Singularity idea and what you think TWZ tracks. I'm ok with maths but obviously not to the same degree as you


As for my "shoe horning" - all I am doing is posting my observations for discussion. I'm not saying they are now official TWZ gospel I am just pointing out possible links that may relate to the wave. It is as always only my opinion.
edit on 21-6-2011 by Cecilofs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 05:21 AM
link   

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.


Yes. You are absolutely right. Those are weaknesses in the theory and challenges yet to be solved.

So...now what?



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 09:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Zagari
 


This is an excellent example of how the graph is treated as some holy scripture.

The end of this charade is some red faces and the search for another laughable claim. Before that happens there will those that are foolish enough to claim that some sort of singularity happened.



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 10:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cecilofs


Ok I really didn't follow that. Can you simplify that a little?


this is really an exploration of Pythagorean concepts- basically a Monad is like a zero dimensional point- a singularity in which the universe emerges- instead of "nothing" or some complex pre-existing superspace like the Inflation Field / the Quantum Vacuum/ String Theory Landscape - the monad is the primal existence of the cosmos without form- it does not simpy expand into a Big Bang since that requires a background space - instead it can only interact with ITSELF- and it is through the self- interactions the Pythagoreans reasoned that the universe builds on itself recursively in a feedback loop to build a VIRTUAL Multiverse woven from the self-reflections like a fractal keleidoscope or a house of mirrors-

these self-reflections of the Monad can be better understood as an acoustic vibration when the network of permutations of the Monad are projected into a timelike dimension- another Pythagoren idea- the waveshape of this ringing of cosmic singularity IS Time- and the Univese of space and form is the subjective projection of these vibrations

this relates to the Timewave because the waveshape of this ringing feedback is not just the fundamental frequency established by the Monad - it is going to sum of ALL the fundamental's HARMONICS and partials- Pythagoras discovers that the harmonic series is a simple exponential doubling of the fundamental frequency- so the Cosmic Waveform that establishes the nature of unfolding Time would be shaped by these harmonics- and since they are the doublings of the cosmic waveform the resulting wave would be constructed similar to the Timewave- which is based on the I Ching: a 6 bit register- a binary matrix of six binary digits- with 64 states- which is 2^6 - so it is a wave based on emphasizing every SIXTH harmonic- while the cosmic wave is built from all the harmonics- but emphasis on the sixth could be nontrivial-

I don't know if that was simpler- basically Time is a tone whose waveform should look somewhat like the timewave



edit on 22-6-2011 by setAI because: spelling



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 10:09 PM
link   
reply to post by setAI
 


The name is stereologist. Altering the name of another user is against the rules.


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

Completely false and now laughable.

The function is not self similar in the self of fractals. It has fractal dimension 1. You stated that yourself and then altered your answer to 1.1 without justification.


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

Another laughable claim. Clearly you have NO understanding of fractals. The point of fractals is that they are space filling. TWZ is not.


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?

You used Hausdorff dimensions or measures. i doubt you kow what you are posting. This is really a laughable bluff on your part.


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-

This is not an estimate. If you knew anything whatsoever about math you'd have stated approximation, but your bluff is pathetic.


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

Oh please show us. I simply don't believe you because the fractal dimension is 1.


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

You obviously have never taken a math course other than basic arithmetic. Please take something like high school algebra for starters. You have not a clue about the term dimension or what constitutes a fractal.


4- the selection of the King Wen Sequence by McKenna was not arbitrary nor is the sequence itself-

It is an arbitrary selection. Were this not an arbitrary selection then there would be reasoning provided for the selection. None is, ergo this is arbitrary.


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

You are clueless about your claims. To claim that any lineal feature is any more space filling than a straight line is laughable.

This is what someone with little math training needs to understand. If you zoom in on a fractal you continue to see complexity. Think of all of those cool videos of fractals. Zoom in on TWZ and you see no complexity, only a simple line like feature. Thus this is not fractal and setAI is doing a rather poor job of attempting to hoodwink you.

The rest of his post is just word salad nonsense.



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 10:21 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


no one believes your smears-

anyone can check my statements for themselves-

just shut up- you are only embarrassing yourself now-

and YOU are the one breaking forum rules with accusation of lying and insults- we all know your stripes: troll
edit on 23-6-2011 by setAI because: iPhone's crappy keyboard/spellcheck



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 10:33 PM
link   
reply to post by setAI
 



no one believes your smears-

That's a rather hopeful claim from someone that has no understanding of fractals and is doing a poor effort at faking it.



anyone can check my statements for themselves-

I did and that is why you were given an F.


just shut up- you are only embarassing yourself now-

Poor baby. Please learn how to spell. There are 2 rs in the word you misspelled.


and YOU are the one breaking forum rules with accusation of lying and insults- we all know your stripes: troll

You are the one that breaks the rules. I am only pointing out where you told untruths.

You do not have a clue about fractals. That's okay it is a hard concept



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 11:01 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


You are the bad boy Sterologist. Let people discuss time wave in peace. You remind me of an aggressive insect.



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 11:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Cecilofs
 


re: my Omega Singularity hypothesis-

I have a blog: www.artistserver.com...

and I am a long time regular poster at Kurzweil's forum: www.kurzweilai.net...

this rabbit hole goes very deep - you may want to take the blue pill (^__-)



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 01:33 AM
link   
Thanks I will check it out when I get home.

I should have taken the blue pill a while ago now, hehe.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 09:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Pilot
 


Thanks but I'll pass on your request for censorship.

Back on topic. Any comments on why TWZ is not fractal?



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 04:40 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


It's your condescending, nasty attitude I object to Sir. Say what you will, be less obnoxious. That is my request. Can you? Your argument is not served by being overly aggressive. If you are correct, the facts will reveal that. Simple.



new topics

top topics



 
575
<< 154  155  156    158  159  160 >>

log in

join