Quote:

Evan said:Mckenna, yet brilliant, also a little naive at times.

---

Uhhh...novelty theory is a continuous fluctuation.  So is the timewave of McKenna's theory.  So yes, on certain days the graph will drop significantly, other days it won't.  Just because you don't hear of a major event on the day the software predicts a surge of novelty doesn't mean it didn't happen.

I have a copy of it, PM if you want, shymanta.  We'll figure out a way to get it to ya. 

And cosmic, read this:

http://www.fourmilab.ch/rpkp/autopsy.html


and then read this:   


http://www.levity.com/eschaton/bombshell.html


It was "debunked" and then "proven" again.

Quote:

Reached at his home in Hawaii for comment McKenna had this to say: "I owe a real debt of gratitude to both Watkins and John Sheliak, but especially John. His work now makes explicit every stage in the construction of the timewave, any interested mathematician can now satisfy him or herself as to the precise details of the construction of the timewave. What is exciting to me and what makes me very confident of the new formulation is the fact that we are now getting a better fit of the Novelty graphs to historical data in a number of key areas where before, with the old version, we had some problems. Just to mention two examples. The new wave, which we are calling Timewave 1, to distinguish it from Timewave 0, the new wave gives a much better picture of the ebb and flow of Novelty during the Second World War and during the century of the birth of Islam, than did the old wave. These are exciting times for Novelty Theory. I am happy to admit my error in the construction of the wave. Novelty Theory can now mature into a genuine intellectual discipline in which we can hope to see the contributions made by many people exploring the field. Many exciting discoveries now lie ahead."

---

Quote:

My reaction to the content of the Watkins paper was mixed. Watkins had apparently uncovered an operational flaw in the process used to generate the 384 number data set from the basic FOD number set, then concluded that the flaw was fatal to TWZ and Novelty Theory. The discovery of an operational flaw was interesting and certainly worthy of examination; but his conclusion that Novelty Theory was therefore stillborn, seemed somewhat premature and speculative to me. Theories are, after all, validated or invalidated by the evidence of their success or failure, and neither by speculation nor proclamation. Without evidence then, Watkins' most important conclusion appeared to be speculative - that the unexplained "half twist" spelled doom for the TimeWave and Novelty Theory. Nonetheless, Watkins has doneTWZ and Novelty Theory a revitalizing service with his work, since his challenge has forced the interested parties to take a closer look at the TimeWave and its foundation - and for this he should be commended. Moreover, since my intended work was based on the assumption that the TimeWave contained meaningful information, expressed through Novelty Theory, Watkins' work also forced me to examine that assumption more closely, as well as provoking me to take a closer look at the foundation of these ideas myself.

---

McDMT