reply to post by ignorant_ape
Originally posted by ignorant_ape
ok - as " time wave zero " seems to be the latest ` big stir ` in the 2012 cult - it is prudent to have a closer look at just how 2012 and TWZ
became intertwined
the answer ?
its a arbitrary " correlation " decided on a whim by the creators of the ` program ` -
read the creators own admission here
the time wave is zero at only one point , when x=0 . for x> 0 the value of the wave is positive , the zero point is the point in time
CHOSEN to correspond to the value zero for x , the usual point used is 6 am on December 21st 2012 ( known as the zero date ) thus the time
wave has a positive value for all points prior to the zero date , is zero only at the zero point and is undefined after the zero point
rather than being the ` end point ` 2012 is actually the START of the TWZ process
I honestly expected more from your argument given the title of the thread. It’s entirely based on the semantics of the word “chosen” and your
assumption that the mathematics of the program relied on 2012 in any way.
The Timewave is a standalone fractal graph described by the mathematics available from Peter Meyer on the page you linked to. It’s a set of numbers
that repeat where each subsequent cycle shrinks in length. It continues forward to infinity but is given the value of zero to keep things simple. It
also continues backwards to infinity, but is generally cut-off at the beginning of known human civilization in order to keep it a finite
representation (natural history can also be mapped if you want to extend the wave further into the past). So rather than having an infinitely long
wavy line, you’ve got something you can work with.
McKenna then took this standalone fractal graph and compared it to history. He had the numbers 384…24,576…1,572,864…100,663,296 (each subsequent
value obtained by multiplying the previous by 64 – the number of hexagrams in the I-Ching), and so on. Using those number sets to represent
individual days, he compared his repeating saw-tooth graph to a linear timeline of history. He noticed the same peaks and troughs repeating throughout
history and then began the undertaking of attempting to correlate ‘big’ events to major shifts in the wave.
Within the timewave, each cycle is connected by a ‘hinge’ in the wave where the next section is the smaller representation of the fractal set.
These points were considered to be the most major shifts as they give rise to the next phase of history. McKenna was most interested in seeing how the
20th Century compared to the wave, so he began possible correlations to see if the peaks and troughs in the graph matched the ‘highs’ and
‘lows’ of history. Using the hinge described above as an anchor point, McKenna decided to align the hinge in the graph with August 6, 1945 (the
nuclear attack on Hiroshima). With that point as the deciding factor of all other points, you could say the process begins with that date, not with
Dec. 21, 2012 as you assumed.
The earliest zero date calculated using August 6, 1945 as the crucial point was November 16, 2012 (this was the result of using an early number set,
and was what McKenna believed to be the end date in the wave – this was his belief during most of the 1970’s). Later through different
calculations using slight variations of the King Wen sequence, he settled on Dec. 22, 2012 around 1991 (after being made aware of the Mayan calendar
end date). Then around 1993 with the release of version 4.3 of the DOS software, he correlated zero date with Dec. 21, 2012 using the 4 wave
calculations (Kelley, Watkins, Sheliak, HuangTi).
www.hermetic.ch...
so its utter dishonesty to set a capricious start date - for a sequence that infact works back wards
then turn around and claim that it actually " runs " forwards - and that there is some significance to the 2012 ` end point `
Well, no. The timewave works both forwards and backwards from a point in history. The zero date is then decided by the ‘hinge’ date of August 6,
1945. Like I said, the timewave is a standalone fractal wave – you can try and place it anywhere you like, but the best-fit as discovered by McKenna
is with the last cycle beginning around the moment of the Hiroshima bomb.
There is no running backwards and stating it runs forwards, etc. It is what it is.
the math of TWZ is actually quite revealing once you peer past the hype –
the simple summary is that you start with a series of numbers – and run them through a repetitive equation
that’s it – all there is to it
Again, no. The calculations are based on the number 64. That number is key to the ancient Chinese I-Ching (which the program is based on). It’s a
philosophical text dated from around 2800BC and maps ‘change’ through time, in fact
I Ching means ‘Book of Changes.’ These changes the
book tracks are identified by 64 individual hexagrams, all with different meanings.
Here are the individual hexagrams of the I-Ching:
McKenna recorded the number of lines that changed from one hexagram to the next and graphed it as a simple wave. He then took that graph, reversed it
on itself and then combined the two.
Then he combined these end to end to get three variations – then overlaid all 3 to get a final graph.
That graph was the averaged to get the timewave cycle. I describe it simply, but McKenna would obviously describe the process better.
So it’s a little more involved than picking any ‘ole numbers and repeating them.
the resultant graph looks pretty and has recurring patterns – but they mean nothing , because its simply a recursive sequence – its
INTENDED TO BE THAT WAY – USING THE SAME NUMBERS AND SAME EQUATRION – YOU CANNOT GET ANYTHING ELSE
even the ` starting data ` is arbitrary – you could use ANY set of numbers – and you would get a similar graph – from the same equations and yes
it would have recurring patterns too and if you set the y axis of the graph to an arbitrary calendar – it produces ` resonances ` if you cherry pick
events
Once again, no. Use any other numbers, and you will get an entirely different graph. Try it.
It is not a ‘simply recursive sequence.’ It’s a repeating fractal set that shrinks to infinity as it progresses forward. The program attempts to
show that time is in fact a repetitive fractal cycle and most serious discussions on the matter use historical data to prove this.
Resonances are not ‘cherry picked.’ Correlative time windows in the past are not flexible, and the history itself is not flexible. When I compare
our present to the same place in a previous cycle, what appears is not a random comparison. There is only one event window that shadows the present,
and whatever appears there is not able to be altered.
and all ` correlations ` of events are simply forced fit patter finding – any even that ` matches ` a date is used – however vague or
tenuous the ` connection `
and anything that doesn’t match is ignored
Like I stated, what appears in the event window are non-flexible historical data. Most often, the repeat of the past in the present is an echo and
mirrors the past event quite clearly. In many cases, no other ‘random’ events would suit the correlation.
Non-matching events are not ignored, it’s simply that not every single event in history is repeated, only major ‘themes’ in history, especially
ones that affect the future the most…and ones most likely to repeat are the ones that directly affect the precise point in the future cycle.
the entire ` science ` of it is UTTER TWADDLE – they started off with a conclusion , and manufactured the data to ` prove ` the claim true .
and now there is thread after thread on ATS
McKenna’s work is not ‘twaddle.’ I’m working on fleshing out the details of his work in his absence (as are many people who find this subject
interesting). It’s a work in progress and requires time and history to continue. This world seeks to prove that time follows a cyclic pattern,
not that ‘we’re all gonna die.’
There are many questions that come up about this program when you consider the implications. And yes, it has its imperfections - it's based on
McKenna's idea of 'novelty,' and the timewave map relies on his correlations, and one assumption - that the Hiroshima atomic blast was the most
'novel' event of the 20th Century.
You’re welcome to your opinions, just as anyone is who reads anything about the subject. But you would do yourself a great service by actually
basing your stance on actual facts rather assumptions.
[edit on 29/6/09 by Evasius]