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.
Originally posted by stereologist
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.
Originally posted by Zagari
reply to post by Zagari
May 15 2011, the graph is now going down --- until May 30 2011 ---.
Just had 3 of my most COOL days ever...The best weekend spent with friends since months...
I use to write my life on a sort of diary and lately I'm writing pages for a single day...Something that never happens.
Resonances are: 1910 and 1977.
How about backing up your claims with some evidence? How about a page number from one of Mandelbrot's books? Or a direct quote from Hausdorff? Or a mathematical formula that disproves what setAI is claiming?
If you don't have something more than just YOUR word, the one that you seem to keep on expecting everyone to believe, you are trolling.
I have looked at the Timewave enough times, as have enough other people, to know that it is fractal and slices of it absolutely do repeat without any doubt whatsoever, so there is self-similarity/quote]
You might try reading Mandelbrot to learn what self similarity is. There is nothing in TWZ that is self similar with respect to the concept of fractals.
Consider f(x)=sin(x) it is not fractal and it is as self similar as TWZ.
This is what is referred to by many here as RESONANCE in the Timewave, when a period of time looks exactly like another period of time, only shorter in duration.
There is a huge difference between the space filling concept of fractals and the resonance issue you refer to as the "self similarity" of fractals. In fractals if you zoom in arbitrarily far you continue to see the idea of self similarity. Think of all of the beautiful videos of Mandelbrot sets. That does not happen with TWZ. Zoom in and soon all you see is a straight line segment. Zoom in more and it is just a straight line segment. That does not happen with fractals. The complex shapes continue to be seen.
you have to apply an anisotropic transformation
Can you provide a reference to this claim? No. Because this has nothing to do with fractals.
Clearly you have some rather large misconceptions about fractals. Here is a link to the idea of fractal dimension in which you can see that objects such as curved lines and spheres are 1 and 2 dimensions respectively.
Fractal Dimensions
Please see if you can calculate the fractal dimensions of objects such as a circle and then see that the TWZ is nothing more than a shape of fractal dimension 1.
The final rendering is a fractal waveform compiled mathematically (vector math) from the merging of 3 separate bi-directional linear waveforms
Please demonstrate to us all how this is not true and cite references and resources to the contrary. Put up or shut up, it's really that simple.
You keep referring to a fractal in the altruistic sense of the word.
A fractal that is self-similar does not have to be exact, and if you really did know anything about Mandelbrot or had actually read one of his books, you'd know that.
Your constant harping on the definition of fractals along with your misunderstanding of their use points to your understanding being limited to graphics or 3D modeling of some kind.
Your constant harping on the definition of fractals along with your misunderstanding of their use points to your understanding being limited to graphics or 3D modeling of some kind.
This repeating sequence, along with the fractional Brownian motion of the combined sequence, is what creates the recursive "fractal" feature of the Timewave and allows for resonance to be viewed in the renderer, but let's not get too far over your head by actually providing evidence that you say nobody has...
To quote Sheliak directly from his paper on the Timewave formula:
I have provided enough evidence in this post alone to close the argument you are fighting for dear life to uphold
What evidence do you have to back this up? Please show everyone that there is nothing in TWZ that is self similar? Show us all that the Timewave doesn't have repeating patterns in it?
Why do you keep trying to pick apart the math when you don't even have a grasp on it???
A formula for a sinusoidal wave? Really?? You're saying that a repeating wave such as a sine wave, the kind that comes from a continuous tone/sound, is similar to the Timewave? This makes absolutely no sense... not only that, but you just said TWZ is not self similar, but now you are comparing something that IS self similar to it, essentially saying that Timewave IS self similar.... talk about "foot in mouth" disease...
Because I know for 100% fact that there are people on this thread that can take screenshots of different larger sections of the Timewave that you can zoom in to and see the same pattern repeat.
Yes, I can. The fractal transformation is directional (anisotropic). It has to begin with a start or end point and move in the opposite direction, which is why the software asks you how many days back from the end date you want to go. Here is the formula
Clearly, YOU don't have an understanding of true fractals or the math behind them, and your only knowledge appears to come from 3D rendering software and not actual mathematics.
When calculating the Timewave, you first start with a wave going forward. It has a starting point and an end/terminal point. The King Wen sequence is used to generate the "random" points along the wave using the First Order of Difference, which as I explained before, is the number of lines that change as you move through each hexagram. The number set is derived from the I-Ching hexagrams. This process uses a piecewise linear function which expands and combines the line segments connecting each point in the sequence to form the "wave" from the start to the end. Each wave is then flipped and inverted (180 degree rotation of the wave about the x,y axes origin (0,0)), then joined at the start and end points to create a bi-directional wave, which is also the most basic building block of the Timewave. The piecewise linear nature AND wave directed flow lend themselves to vector mathematics, which are what is being used to create the full Timewave. When the three sets of bi-directional waves are created (linear, trigramatic, hexagramatic) and merged, they create "noise", also known as a Guassian process, which is otherwise known as fractional Brownian motion or the Wiener Process. Since the waves represent a probability distribution and reflect a form of "noise" that has to be filtered out, it IS fractal because of it's fractional Hausdorff dimension.
This is what everyone is trying to determine and figure out... which is why some people try to connect events the way they do. Rather than just dispel it as myth, perhaps you should try to better understand it. It's ok to admit when you are wrong or don't know something and ask a question.
You are really way off on your math and your attitude.
If you choose to disrupt the discussion with no evidence of any kind other than your opinion, I will continue to complain every single time you do and encourage others to do the same.