I don't suppose you are going to enlighten us on why all these "timewave zero" graphs have the big bang in the wrong spot by like 10 billion or more years?

Oh my bad you already did explain it:


This post was edited by Azrad on Dec 1 2009 07:12am

First of all, the graph is created by an algorithm. Maybe you never took a math class, I don't know. If you did, I think you could recall that all graph points have an equation. I am highly uneducated in the realm of math and I can not for the life me remember the typical equation. Something like y=mx+b or something.

As for the principle, everything in life has a principle, what doesn't? The principle idea of this is the calculation of novelty, which I've said several times.

Abstract thought is something I don't think you understand, no use in trying to explain it. You have to experience thinking outside the box to understand what it is. Give it a whirl sometime.

Do I agree that this is psuedo-science? Well, I've already been through the fact that I believe terminology is just another cheap attack at undermining an opinion because somebody in the world thought it was necessary to create a term that solely undermines other's theories. Nobody in the realm of what you call "psuedo-science" calls it that. It's a pejorative term used to weaken theories in the minds of those who cannot see past the simple semantics. So no, I do not believe that it is "psuedo-science." I am concerned with objective language, not subjective terminology created by those who seek to become to bullies of modern day science.

Examining the faults of science is a whole other topic entirely but if you're under the impression that science is the end all explanation for the uniqueness of our universe, you're clearly not looking hard enough.



Lol, I already sent it. I'm not interested in proving you wrong. I could care less, sorry to burst your bubble. Also, could you explain how you theorize that the big bang occurred at a different time? Break it down for me please. Finally, big jerk is not the term I would use. I would call you something more along the lines of "typical closed-minded American bigot." But hey, whatever's clever.

This post was edited by HERETICtheory on Dec 1 2009 03:27pm

So basically, you have no idea of how the 'novelty math' works. Yet you do believe in it and buy into it? You are still being VERY vague and not supporting any claims. Therefore, your beliefs are about as credible as the flying spaghetti monster.

A more general definition of an algorithm is just a series of steps which solve a problem. Again, that doesn't really make any sense in the context you're using it. WHAT is the algorithm? Can you tell me that much? I really don't think you know what you're talking about.


Cool. I asked for an example. You can claim that you have the capacity for abstract thought, and I'll claim I have the capacity to comprehend English sentences, because you sure as hell can't. How's that?


.. but that's not really what we're discussing here.


You're right, we are trying to undermine your "theories". That's part of the process of debate and scientific scrutiny or the peer review. If your "theory" isn't backed with actual empirical evidence, then it's nonsense. Calling it for what it is may seem like it's a "cheap attack", but in actuality it's _just_ calling it what it is. It claims to be science. You claim it has some algorithm to generate a graph that relates to novelty theory. You haven't explained to me how novelty is measured, what this algorithm is, you've merely been reiterating the same general nonsense: "Well if we just apply the math that I can't actually explain and abstract thought that you don't process(LOL!!!) to history, then we'll end up with this miraculous coincidence which points to 2012".

Cite concrete examples and make the connections clear, otherwise just fuck off.

This post was edited by infinitesimal on Dec 1 2009 03:54pm

Basically I don't know how the math works, you are correct. I have assumed a degree of faith in trusting those who I understand and agree with just like you do for a very good number of things. Not to say faith is a good excuse, it's not. But in this case, I have studied Terence McKenna extensively and agree with him on quite a lot, including the principles behind Novelty Theory, therefore, understanding the math behind it or not is not a huge concern of mine. While it DOES impact my knowledge of the subject, I could care less. I think it's an interesting theory but I don't "believe" in it. If you can sit there and tell me you're an expert on EVERYTHING, I will laugh in your face. You're not. Neither am I. Math is my weakness and so that is the flaw in my musing. Every idea is flawed in some way, you all are just spending your time looking for the flaws in mine (really it's not mine, it's Terence McKenna and Peter Meyers'). Why not take some of that time and find the flaws in yours? We're not perfect.

Furthermore, your trolling is lame and ill-informed. I never once said I 100% agree with this, nor did I conclude that it is what is "right." I simply threw it on the table as an interesting subject. You're just a follower of the crowd and you saw that everybody here gets a kick out of trolling me, so, being the weak-minded person you are, you joined in as well. If you read my post from the beginning you would know that I don't adhere strictly to this belief so ultimately I don't know what point you are trying to make. You are simply calling me out on something that has no bearing on the situation. Whether it's true or not has nothing to do with me, I was simply the messenger of the information.

You should check out what you blindly copy/pasted into your signature and take some time to seriously think about it.

Nice burn infinitesimal. Couldn't have done it better myself.

Can I tell you the algorithm. No... pay attention here buddy. I'm trying to slow my roll so you can keep up but you're just falling behind left and right. An algorithm is a mathematical equation. Got that?? I don't know what the fuck the algorithm is seeing as it is highly complex and I am very uneducated in the realm of math. I don't think most high school level math teachers would understand the algorithm either. It is an equation for fractal time, if you think you can handle that, go fucking look it up. I believe it's part of the application I have and that's why I offered to send it to people. All of this has been covered in previous posts, your posting is only magnifying the fact that you don't know what you're talking about and the "WHAT THE FUCK"s and such are only furthering that idea.

I'm reading your post section by section as I reply and I find it quite hilarious to have come to this part right now after typing the above:

"and I'll claim I have the capacity to comprehend English sentences, because you sure as hell can't. How's that?"

First off, what the fuck does that even mean? I have already claimed that I have a capacity for abstract thought. But clearly, as stated above, you do not comprehend English sentences very well.

Now I've come to the part where you say ".. but that's not really what we're discussing here." and all I have in response is a shaking of my head in disappointment and a reiteration of "Examining the faults of science is a whole other topic entirely" It's in bold, can you get it now?? I've clearly acknowledged that it's not what we're discussing now.

"That's part of the process of debate and scientific scrutiny or the peer review."

I could give a fuck less about YOUR peer review. You're clearly incompetent. Also, I could give two fucks less about anybody's "review." I didn't post it for review, I posted it so you can be aware that it exists and in turn take some time to consider it on whatever level it impacts you on. You all seem to think I'm posting for you. No, I'm posting for ME. I'm not here to save your soul and even if I was, you wouldn't let me.

"It claims to be science."

No, it never claimed to be science. It claimed to be a theory. In fact, I would argue that this is everything science has ignored.

"Cite concrete examples and make the connections clear, otherwise just fuck off."

I have laid off the personal attacks with you throughout this whole thread but it is getting tiresome. If this is your attitude towards life, you must live an extremely boring and hollow lifestyle and your social interactions must be sub-par if not non-existent. I'm not going to "fuck off" anytime soon and when I do, it certainly will NOT be because you told me to.

You make me laugh.

If it's all for you, don't post it. If it isn't, you're an idiot for posting and then claiming you don't care.

Second of all, I google'd some info on fractal time, 2012 etc.

It basically defies every way of scientific thought aswell as all the physical laws. Moreover, the articles are written in a way that it is impossible to test the theory or to make contradictory claims.

Basically, your theory is a pile of nonsense.

Your personal attacks aren't convincing, unless of course you're trying to convince of what kind of a person you are, then yes, I see now what kind of a person you are. I posted it because I wanted to share an idea. That was an act that fulfilled something that I desired.

Again, if you want to back your claims of legitimacy with science, that's fine with me. Go right ahead. In that context it doesn't make sense. However, I do not back claims of legitimacy through science because I do not believe it is the ultimate art of understanding. It has it's uses, but mostly its only useful within the confines of the system we have erected. So if you'd like to hold this theory up to your ungodly light of all knowing, absolute science, then go right ahead. I think you've already realized that when you do this, the theory IS in fact, a pile of nonsense.

You've missed my point by a long shot and yet you still feel the need to criticize it. Maybe you just don't understand. If that's the case, that's fine, I'm completely okay with that. There was a time that I did not think the way I do today. Maybe one day you'll get it, maybe you won't. I don't care, that is for you to decide what level of experience you want to be open to in this life. If you feel so insecure that you have to challenge ideas that aren't even being pushed on you, I feel very sad for you. You are under the impression that I am arguing with you. Sadly, I am not. I am just defending my posts. I'm sure you're a wonderful person once you open up and show your greatness but right now all you're doing is attempting to ruin my day. I have no sympathy for that and you will be judged according to your actions.

I'm not here to hurt any one of you, yet you're all extremely threatened by my presence. It's almost an honor.

Really, I haven't received anything...



Well there are three major methods used, they all give similar results. The simplest and least controversial method is to measure the distance (in light years) to the surface of last scattering. The WMAP satellite made these measurements earlier this decade. It measured the distance at about 13.5 billion light years.