reply to post by Zagari
I also respect the research you're doing, as with all researchers looking into Novelty Theory. Evasius has done a great job with the level of detail
and commitment to the subject and it's good to see a healthy thread. The more researchers the better.
Yes, I've read this thread, and several others on the topic. The points I raised in the above post concern the inconsistency within the existing
timewave data sets, without the need to shift the end date.
I agree with the point made by memarf1, shifting the end date in order to match research data you have compiled isn't a thorough analysis of the
existing variables, and is a little premature. Some of us have spent several years with the data and don't feel it's necessary to suggest an
alternative end date when there's still plenty to research. Having said that, I do find it interesting as mentioned in another thread, especially
considering that Mckenna did move the end date originally from Nov 16th 2012 to match the accepted end date of the Mayan long-count calendar.
In reply to your comments:
'I think the Huang Ti graph only needs some changes to be PERFECT'.
What exactly do you mean by 'perfect' and in what sense can it need only small changes? The Huang Ti graph produces results very different from
either the Kelley, Watkins or Sheliak graphs. The 2010 graphs for example are completely different. Small changes aren't going to bring the graphs in
'So, also the original graph IS NOT THAT MUCH OF EXACT.'
This is exactly my point! The Kelley wave contains mathematical errors, which users should be aware of. Should we continue to use it? - yes, but with
an awareness that the math it is built on contains errors and therefore it's not 100% accurate. The threads here tend to use the Kelley wave as the
main source of data because it's the most readily available as software.
Following Mckenna's own admission, it makes scientific sense to use the Sheliak graph as a preference over the Kelley graph in further studies, as
the Sheliak graph maps historical data more accurately.
You also stated:
'So, I believe Evasius is using the right graph, because , if there aren't natural events exploding on July 8 there is nothing that makes think that
July 8 is so colossal that can replace the November 14 point.'
The 'right' graph isn't a realistic claim. None of the graphs can be considering 'right', only more mathematically sound than others. The Sheliak
graph tipping point on the 8th July is more gradual than the one proposed by the Kelley graph on 14th Nov. It has more time to slide down to the high
level of Novelty, therefore less likely to contain an event as colossal.
I look forward to more of your information.
[edit on 6-7-2010 by ramblings]