Timewave Zero - Countdown to Transition

Here are some links to sites about fractals. There you can see what a fractal actually is.

en.wikipedia.org...
math.rice.edu...
mathworld.wolfram.com...

reply to post by stereologist


What are you talking about? The excert was entirely within quotes, typical of your desire to be negative and abrasive. Did you mean quote it this way? If so you could just say so without attacking but then its not in your nature.

Fractal Time Software Documentation

A remarkable quality of the timewave is that it is a fractal (although this was not fully revealed until the late 1980s). Once a part of the wave is displayed the software allows you to expand any smaller part. This usually reveals a complexity of structure which persists however much the wave is magnified, a property typical of fractals. The idea that time has a fractal structure (in contrast to the Newtonian conception of time as pure, unstructured, duration) was first proposed by Terence McKenna. It is certainly an intriguing idea worthy of further consideration by physicists.

reply to post by coffeesniffer


This is not an attack. It is a recommendation.

... and be sure to enclose it in quotes so that others know what you wrote and what you copied from others.

On the other hand it seems fairly obvious that you did not understand the material you posted. Fractal dimension is a dimensionless quantity. That is a hint to go back to the math and verify that the computation given is NOT unitless.

Once again you post a ink to someone with the mistaken idea that TWZ is fractal. It is not. As I pointed out it is not self similar.

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by coffeesniffer

 

Did you understand any of the material you posted and did not place in quotations?

Next time try to understand the material you post and be sure to enclose it in quotes so that others know what you wrote and what you copied from others.

Firstly it was within quotations, these are quotes, right? " "

Second you state I should try to understand, what makes you think I didnt try?

Once again you post a ink to someone with the mistaken idea that TWZ is fractal. It is not. As I pointed out it is not self similar.

Can you send me a link where im shown the error in my thinking, where it states TMZ is not fractal based.

Oh, God, we're back to the train " Its not fractal/yes it is "...Stereologist has run out of ideas to disprove the theory so that now he has to say the same things of last year and the year before.

reply to post by stereologist

False. You are plugging unrelated values into a formula and deriving garbage.

Which is a pretty accurate description of TWZ

Love how Zagari isn't able to refute a single point made in the video that debunks TWZ.

reply to post by MrXYZ


You posted that video twice on here, but there is a news for you. That is not even worth discussing because the things that the video poster claims are exactly the kind of comments that usually people who don't know anything about timewave say.

Originally posted by Zagari
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

You posted that video twice on here, but there is a news for you. That is not even worth discussing because the things that the video poster claims are exactly the kind of comments that usually people who don't know anything about timewave say.

In other words, instead of being able to refute the points, you take the "easy route" and simply claim it's nonsense...didn't expect any better from you

At least rational people have a good summary of why TWZ is such nonsense.

Sigh.

Please STOP the personal sniping and discuss the Topic.

reply to post by coffeesniffer

[Can you send me a link where im shown the error in my thinking, where it states TMZ is not fractal based.

I stated it was not fractal based. I gave reasons:
1. It is NOT self similar.
2. The values given by the link you posted were not dimensionless. Thus the values are bogus.
3. TWZ is a piecewise linear construction, i.e. the fractal dimension is 1.

reply to post by Zagari

Oh, God, we're back to the train " Its not fractal/yes it is "...Stereologist has run out of ideas to disprove the theory so that now he has to say the same things of last year and the year before.

Every prediction you have made has been an unequivocal failure.
1. I commend you for attempting to test TWZ
2. TWZ is a failure since 100% of the tests have been failures

Someone else is back on the fractal issue. Regardless of how often it is stated, there are those that march in here with the same mistakes.

TWZis not fractal. I suppose that it was falsely given that label to make it more attractive to the gullible.

reply to post by Zagari

You posted that video twice on here, but there is a news for you. That is not even worth discussing because the things that the video poster claims are exactly the kind of comments that usually people who don't know anything about timewave say.

I counter that the video contains issues that strongly refute TWZ and the acolytes of this hoax are unable to respond so they become silent.

I notice that no one has responded to my point that the fractal link did math in which the computed fractal dimension was not unitless. Anyone care to explain why any of that atrocious math should be considered at all?

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by coffeesniffer

 

[Can you send me a link where im shown the error in my thinking, where it states TMZ is not fractal based.

I stated it was not fractal based. I gave reasons:
1. It is NOT self similar.
2. The values given by the link you posted were not dimensionless. Thus the values are bogus.
3. TWZ is a piecewise linear construction, i.e. the fractal dimension is 1.

So thats a simple no then

Why would I have expected anything else

reply to post by stereologist


Yes I can give a reason, because Watkins said it was.

reply to post by coffeesniffer


Actually, that is not true. Watkins referred to them as "fractal mathematics" where he placed quotation marks around the term as I do here to indicate that it is not fractal mathematics.

What does Watkins say?

I found there to be no fractal mathematics present

Why fib?

This is the question you asked.

Anyone care to explain why any of that atrocious math should be considered at all?

I answered saying Watkins said so and here is why I said it.

I should add that I don't find McKenna's timewave exploit to be completely without value. Certain observations (such as the absence of 5's in the set [h(1),...,h(64)] and the correspondence of the Chinese 13-lunation ritual calendar with six 64-day cycles) are certainly worthy of further consideration.

Watkins also go's onto say

It wouldn't surprise me if a fractal map of temporal resonance was encoded into the King Wen sequence, just as it wouldn't surprise me if something quite remarkable does occur on December 21, 2012

I know its not what you wanted to hear.

reply to post by coffeesniffer

I answered saying Watkins said so and here is why I said it.

I quoted Watkins and he says no so the answer is NO.

You are wrong and trying very poorly to misrepresent Watkins when he stated NO.

Quote 1 - nothing to do with fractals
Quote 2 - nothing says it is fractal

To repeat what Watkins stated himself

I found there to be no fractal mathematics present

That's pretty much the end of the story.

reply to post by stereologist


If what you quote Watkins said is true then my conclusion is that Watkins is contradicting himself but that’s not important , you wished to know if there was any good reason in giving further consideration to the math behind TMZ and even though contradictory Watkins statement saying there is good reason is good enough for purpose.

reply to post by coffeesniffer

If what you quote Watkins said is true then my conclusion is that Watkins is contradicting himself but that’s not important , you wished to know if there was any good reason in giving further consideration to the math behind TMZ and even though contradictory Watkins statement saying there is good reason is good enough for purpose.

My reference was specifically to the math that had been referenced by another poster.

As far as Watkins is concerned there is no contradiction. Nothing you posted states that TWZ is fractal. Below you can read Watkins himself and he makes it very clear that TWZ is not fractal. No wonder. It is obvious that it is not fractal. The curve is not self similar. It is a piecewise linear graph.

www.realitysandwich.com...