A challenge/request to anyone interested in scientifc theory

fatbagger · Post by **fatbagger** » 30 Jul 2009 06:19

I was starting to study evolution and came across this theory called timewave zero and have become very interested in it. I dont necessarily believe in this yet, mainly because I don't know enough about math/ don't have enough spare time to do the calculations. But the calculations I did check seemed to be very percise and I was wondering if anyone who thinks that they are smart enough could look into this theory with a great deal of depth and let me know what they think about this theory with an in depth response. It is not really a theory on evolution but a theory on space , time and the evolution of the universe based on the king wen sequence of the I ching.
To get started I sugest you google video search timewave zero part 1.
there are 5 parts to this video in which terence Mckenna explains his theory to his fellow scientists, each video is about 10 minutes long.

Keep in mind that he died in 2000 and I checked his timewave program and it accuratly predicts that an event that would change the world would occur on exactly sept. 11 2001 it also percisely accounts for every event of change that ever took place in the history of the universe. event of change isn't the right way to explain it. it is actually a rise or decline in novelty whick he explains. I didn't even tip the Iceburg of the implications of this theory their is alot more to be said and he explains most of it in the 5 part video.

So someone please google video search timewave zero part 1 and watch the videos then look more deeply into this and respond back. I really need someone elses opinion on this because it is just to interesting to keep to myself and I don't have anyone who is interested in this topic to discuss it with.

fatbagger · Post by **fatbagger** » 30 Jul 2009 06:55

Make sure you watch the timewave zero part 1,2,3,4 and 5 before you watch any other videos or read any info on this subject because it can be confusing and sound insane if you don't have a complete overview of the subject. I read about it and then watched some other video first and thought the guy was a nut, then gained the full picture of where this theory came from and how he turned the i ching into the timewave zero program. If you work on it enough there is enough info out there to check his calculations fully but you'll have to find many sources for that info. he explains it with numbers like 384 when the real number is 383.something, something, something but the real numbers are out there if you look. I found them but didn't remember the site. sorry

here are the links http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghTNTuDW-3k
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9X9zIfh ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4WYcfRZ ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TVit-rM ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPYi5uI- ... re=related

fatbagger · Post by **fatbagger** » 30 Jul 2009 07:22

I found the site with the mathmatics of the timewave zero again.
here it ishttp://www.hermetic.ch/frt/math_twz.htm

fatbagger · Post by **fatbagger** » 30 Jul 2009 08:36

There was supposed to be a part 6 but it must not have been made because I couldn't find it. There is important info that was supposed to be in that video so here is a 3 part video that fills in the holes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgl_uhcG ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFjL-Vds ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7vgTd7h ... re=related

If you start watching these vids I suggest you watch them all before you make any conclusions about this theory. I would recomend that everyone watch all 8 of these videos. If you want to test his map of the history of the universe you can use his timewave zero program herehttp://www.timewave2012.com/
remember he died in 2000 and his map is still accurate

other sites
http://timewave.wordpress.com/2007/12/2 ... zero-2012/
http://web.archive.org/web/200801250955 ... plain.html

ted · Post by **ted** » 30 Jul 2009 10:53

You do know what Terrence McKenna is best known for, right?

While DMT and entheogens are fascinating, the wild hallucinations you experience while dosed on them aren't exactly scientific. I imagine if you investigated the 'coincidences' that his algorithm predicts, you'd find they aren't so astounding.

No, I didn't watch the videos but I have read and enjoyed books by McKenna, Leary, and Pinchbeck.

[/jeremy]

fatbagger · Post by **fatbagger** » 30 Jul 2009 15:03

yes, and I do believe he went slightly insane but if you ignore most of that stuff and just look at this for what it is there is a certian level of undeniable truth to it. But yes he seems to have made his own assumptions on the implications of his research. Thats why I wanted people to look at these vids before exploring into the rest of his theory involving hallucinagens. Even if you think he is full of shit and it is just coincidence, it is still very entertaining. The only real connection between the resonence levels and hallucinagens is the fact that he was only able to figure out what to do with the I Ching on a heavy dose of mushrooms.

I have investigated his coicidences in the different levels of resonence and if you know how to interpret the software(which I do) it is undeniable that it has been accurate up to this date. If you need help using his software I can explain it to you but if you just think about how to use it, then it isn't that hard to check its accuracy.

The king wen - Shelisk version on the link that I gave above is the most mathematicly sound version of the software.

I still don't think I quite believe this, but I know that in the near future I will know if he was right about the levels of resonence or not. If not it is amazing how he ever came up with this and it will have proved that the insaine mind is a very creative and complex thing.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 30 Jul 2009 19:49

I don't really have time to look at this in any great detail sorry. I do have a few comments though;

1. The first sentence is hilarious. You were starting to study evolution and you came across "timewave zero" theory? How did this happen? I study evolution and I've never come across this theory, nor does it appear to have a great deal to do with evolution...

2. I like how you called this topic "a challenge/request to anyone interested in scientific theory" because even though superficially this topic has nothing to do with scientific theory, it's clear that understanding the theory of scientific method is the key to understanding why this should be dismissed as unscientific and not worth serious consideration.

Whenever you come across a theory that sounds unlikely, or even any theory at all if you're truly scientific minded, the first step is attempting to falsify the theory. In this case you have an easy way of doing that and a hard way. The hard way is the most correct way to do it, but obviously harder. That is to actually study this theory and then run real experiments to see if it can make accurate predictions or not.

The second way, which is much easier, but not necessarily very accurate, is to do a search on the internet. I used the phrase "timewave zero debunked" and came up with a fair amount of information.

As the ridiculous 9/11 "truth" movement demonstrates, it's exceptionally easy to make up a obvious lie that takes literally seconds to expose and express it in an authoritative manner and have millions of apparently intelligent people believe you without question. So with this in mind, you really should base decisions after checking the empirical observations for yourself and I doubt that doing that will lead to you accepting this theory as true.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 30 Jul 2009 19:53

Here is a great summary of "timewave zero" for people who don't want to watch those annoying videos;

Timewave Zero or novelty theory was 'discovered' by Terrance McKenna during an intense peyote + acid trip. It is McKenna's interpretation of the King Wen sequence of the I Ching, which is a generally mysterious sequence. He made his interpretation into a fractal formula that is then subsequently graphed. McKenna then selected points in history that he thought would've been major points to match the biggest dip, so he picked the bombing of Hiroshima.

With this, the end date or Zero date, landed in October-November of 2012. He then noticed that it was close to the ending of the 13th Baktun of the Mayan calendar so he decided to pick December 21, 2012 as the end date instead.

fatbagger · Post by **fatbagger** » 30 Jul 2009 21:03

This is almost exactly what I wanted in a response. you are the person I wanted to hear it from just because of your ability to look at statements and either support them or honestly tear them to shreds. You are awsome.
My subject title was made with the sole purpose of gaining the attention of the right type of person to do this.
As for how studying evolution led to this, I noticed that durring the timeframe of the mayan long count I believe their has been a huge amount of evolution of the mind, if that counts as evolution or just learning I don't know, but I decided to look into it and see if there was any connection. While looking into the long count I found various mentions of timewave zero and my curiosity took over and I looked into that instead of evolution although in a way it does have to do with evolution. My brain works in a weird way.

Please tear me and this guys theory apart some more as it really helps me learn how to improve myself.
Once again you are awsome and anyone who thinks you can be an ass sometimes just doesn't want to learn or improve themselves.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 31 Jul 2009 00:52

Thanks, although I'm unsure if you're being sarcastic or are serious

As I said, I don't really have time to look into the details of this timewave phenomenon but having given it a little thought it sounds ridiculous, although perhaps the videos explain these questions;

1. He claims that the timewave is fractal and therefore can be applied over multiple time frames, however this is clearly not the case. Fractals are the same at a regular reducing rate, rather than a random rate. For example if the timewave were fractal in nature than it would work over something like 64 years, 32 years, 16 years, etc. Instead what we see is a random assortment of time frames that it works for. This is far more consistent with my hypothesis that there is no such time wave and that it's merely a case of searching through history for the odd occasions when the patterns in history match the timewave. No doubt if you draw any shaped wave you could find points in history using any time frame that match that shape. It would only be remotely convincing if the timeframe was consistent.

2. Why is Hiroshima the lowest point? At most 140,000 people were killed in that event. The 2004 boxing day tsunami killed 230,000 people. Where is the dip for that? When you go and look at the graphs with events put on them, there doesn't seem to be a genuine link at all between the size of events and the shape of the graph. Especially when you look at long timespans and the specific details of each event.

It seems fairly clear to me that the timewave is false science where he's attempt to confirm his theory rather than falsify it. He's just looked for things that fit with it, and then moulded it around those events while ignoring anything that disagrees with it. He's also used scientific terms (such as fractal) incorrectly, probably in order to try and give it more credibility, or because he likes the general nature of the term rather than the specifics. It's not scientific at all to make claims just because they sound good - you need evidence to support them.

I don't see any scientific evidence that supports these claims at all, nor do I see any explanation in physics that could explain how or why this would work. It's just numerology where he's looking for places where the pattern works (rather than doesn't work).

fatbagger · Post by **fatbagger** » 31 Jul 2009 05:00

first off I was being serious not sarcastic.

the videos do answer some of your points.

I disagree with your thought that the timewave is random it is stuctued by devision and multiplication. its really long so I won't show it all but the intervals go like this
25,855 years>4,309 years>67years104.25days>384days its pattern is /6 /64 /64 I didn't include decimal points. how he developed the pattern http://web.archive.org/web/200801250955 ... plain.html
how he how he tuned it into a single linehttp://www.hermetic.ch/frt/math_twz.htm

I don't believe at all his actual theory on what the end of this pattern means but I do believe that his mathmatical interpretation of the king wen sequence of the I ching is correct and so do alot of people who have studied the I ching.

the videos have visual aids of the I ching in them as he explains the methods that he went through to decifer it.

also, he wasn't on peyote and acid he was on mushrooms and gives credit to that for helping him think about the I ching in a way that he otherwise wouldn't have.

He was obsessed with proving that hallucinagens had a higher purpose for existing in the world and I think that seriously clouded his judgement of what the end of this sequence ment and led to him making assumptions about it. he had a few thoughts on this one of which was that the phisics of the universe would change and instead of us living in a 3D world we would be thrust into a 4,5 or 6D world and we must take hallucinagens to prepare ourselves for this.

as for hiroshima he puts it in resonanse with the big bang. it has nothing to do with people being killed but has to do with the signifigance of the change caused by the event and I think you would agree that we learned alot more and changed the way we do things alot more from that than we did from the tsunami in 2004.

If you can find the time it really is worth while to watch the videos and it is also entertaining listening to him speak. It seems that you definantly do not understand what the timewave is supposed to be nor do you understand that although there are objections to the timewave zero theory considered as a scientific theory, the mathematics underlying the theory are valid.

Mckenna was insane imo he had many rediculous theories and he died of a brain tumor probably caused be his excessive use of various hallucinagens.
Please tear it apart again I do appreciate the effort excuse my horrible spelling and punctuation. I know I'm bad.

fatbagger · Post by **fatbagger** » 31 Jul 2009 07:12

very interesting video of mckennas' views on the implications of his timewave.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuZLB4MeXJk

his take on time acceleration
http://media.abovetopsecret.com/media/1 ... eleration/

personally, I think this stuff is very entertaining. Check it out.

Tsiangkun · Post by **Tsiangkun** » 31 Jul 2009 13:08

Lots of people say the 9/11 truth movement is easy to debunk.

WTC7 collapsed in a perfectly symmetrical implosive.

Buildings do not do this when they collapse from asymmetrical, indirect damage.

WTC7 was announced by the foreign news outlets as collapsed, even as their reporters stood in front of the still standing WTC7.

Why was thermite found in ALL of the samples from WTC ground zero ? Is there a secret requirement to have all skyscrapers built with a self destruct mechanism so they can be brought down in a relatively safe fashion ?

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 31 Jul 2009 18:04

I can't believe we're having this discussion.

Cameron do you know what thermite is?

It's a combination of aluminium and iron oxide. Do you know how many things would contain either aluminium or rusted iron in a building? I would love to hear about a building that doesn't contain those two materials. I bet almost every human construction in the last 200 years contains both to some level.

There was a massive explosion and 3 buildings collapsed and then people found dust particles of the materials the buildings were built out of.

Wow, great evidence of a conspiracy.

I'd also love to hear your source for the claim that "Buildings do not do this when they collapse from asymmetrical, indirect damage. "

I don't believe that any kind of scientific study has ever been done regarding how buildings collapse from asymmetrical, indirect damage and if you can't provide such a study, our only explanation has to be that you, or somebody else, made up that claim without any meaningful evidence to support it.

fatbagger · Post by **fatbagger** » 31 Jul 2009 18:55

I have never heard of any fact based evidence to support a 9/11 conspiracy plus this is not a 9/11 topic so stay on topic if you post please. I actually am interested in the subject of this timewave. And whether or not there is any truth to it, it is still a very interesting topic to think about.

Oboma blew up the twin towers and then hid the gold underneath another building setting up Bush for failure and pushing the american public toward the urge for CHANGE, once he was expectedly elected presedent he would have axess to the restricted areas and would then slowly extract the gold within the next 4 years and the use it to build a superlazer weilding deathstar then on 12/21/2012 he is going to blow up the earth.

come on

Blue_turnip · Post by **Blue_turnip** » 03 Aug 2009 02:42

This topic/thread is just a world of fail. I don't intend to offend the OP, but the theory in question is just that - a big fat pile of fail.

I read "The Mathematics of Timewave Zero" page. The maths has absolutely nothing to do with the validity of the argument (but you wouldn't need to look at the page to know that anyway).

I dunno I just keep getting reminded of Lisa selling Homer a rock that she sarcastically suggested kept tigers away. Classic correlation != causation spot.

fatbagger · Post by **fatbagger** » 03 Aug 2009 03:32

what arguement are you talking about?

I agree that any theory he came up with is bull, but it is accepted that this is a correct interpretation for the I Ching.

I've read alot into this and watched alot of explanations and true or not it is pretty interesting.

Did you just read the mathmatics page or did you also read how he developed the pattern and backing for the mathmatics? You can't really understand what any of this is about unless you look at the I Ching or atleast watch the videos.

Don't be lazy, either explain youself more clearly with backing of your viewpoint or don't post at all please. I don't quite understand what you mean by "This topic/thread is a world of fail" The theory isn't in question, and I shouldn't even call it a theory due to absolutely no scientific basis.

"As the theory was never published in a peer-reviewed journal and McKenna's sources and reasoning were primarily what would be considered numerological rather than mathematical by professional mathematicians and scientists, the theory has failed to gain any (scientific) credibility or much recognition. However, McKenna was highly critical of such fields for adhering to what he saw as a flawed Occidental paradigm, and did not seek to create a theory acceptable to the mathematical community. The theory was, however, revised by nuclear physicist John Sheliak after a flaw was discovered by Matthew Watkins. The new revision is often referred to as Timewave One, but is also inclusive in the set of alternate waves in the Timewave Zero software. It is also claimed that this new version is more closely matched to history."

"Perhaps the real value of novelty theory, at the end of the technological war-driven 20th century, is that it is a parody. It is not a scientific theory, nor is it a pseudo-scientific theory -- it is a parody of a scientific theory. It basically mocks the pretensions of 20th century physical science. It purports to explain the nature of time and to elucidate the inner workings of the temporal world, yet it is obviously absurd, at least to a more than superficial examination. Novelty theory says to us: This is what any Cartesian-Newtonian scientific theory really is -- basically absurd. And since it is absurd, we should not, and do not have to, believe. This basically knocks the foundations out from under the assumptions of modern Western society, built as it is on a faith in modern physical science as being the authority as to the nature of the real world. In this sense Terence McKenna's thought is both liberating and subversive."

Quotes from an article on (I hate to us it) wikipedia

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 03 Aug 2009 03:58

So according to the wikipedia page you are quoting, the whole thing is an exercise in anti-science propaganda?

I have another question. What do you mean by saying that it's the "correct" interpretation of the I Ching? Correct in what manner? Are you saying that when the I Ching was created, the purpose of it was to create a graph or "wave" (note that this "wave" actually isn't a wave at all, in the actual definition of a wave) that predicts the future?

What is the source for the claim that this is the "correct" interpretation and what kind of credibility does this source have? What evidence do they have to support this claim?

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 03 Aug 2009 04:07

Also what the fuck is "Cartesian-Newtonian scientific theory?"

I did a quick search and I couldn't find a single website that used this term that wasn't promoting either Timewave "theory" or some other kind of irrational, unsupported by evidence, baloney.

I put it to you that "Cartesian-Newtonian scientific theory" is a made up word that is totally meaningless. Descartes and Newton certainly played an important role in the development of science, but it's giving them way too much credit to claim that they designed scientific theory or are the two most important people in the development of science. When you compare 19th century science with the science of today, it's very apparent how much evolution of science has occurred, let along going back to the 17th and 18th centuries. You're talking about a time when some of the most important scientific discoveries were made by people who also claimed that you could turn dirty underwear in to rats or mice (and used the science of the time to "prove" this).

The only thing that is shown to be absurd by timewave "theory" is the timewave "theory" and the people who view it as having any kind of truth in it.

fatbagger · Post by **fatbagger** » 03 Aug 2009 05:37

I am just going to save myself the time of finding a non-credible souce. My last post when I said the I chings interpretation was accepted as correct is inaccurate. It is accepted by some of the people who studied it and that doesn't mean shit. So I am going to reverse my stance on this topic because I belive that mabey I just wanted people to watch the videos for it's entertaining value and different way of thinking of things so they would post and I could learn about the way people other than myself think about things. I have made incorrect statements based on my misunderstanding of this topic that I created. I was fooled like a fool. My motives for creating this thread were accomplished. Thank you jeremy for wasting your time proving me wrong, I do appreciate it. And I'm sorry if I misled anyone with false info. It was not my intention.

I still believe some of the aspects of this topic.

The first quote from the article I posted to show that his calculations were origionally proven incorrect then reworked by a nuclear physicist to create the time wave software. John Sheliak is a respected scientist and I believe that he knew how to do this correctly.

I didn't understand exactly what the second quote ment and wanted someone elses opinion on if it meant that the value of novelty theory is that of a joke or if it's value was to parody newtonian era theories in an effort to show that there is no real proven basis for the theories of the era.

To sum it all up I had managed to blind myself to things right in front of my face. I am sorry for wasting your time but I learned a little more about the though process of others and myself which was my origional intention. I just got out of hand.