Hi hhEb09'1, and thanks for these comments which I have been wrestling with. There are two issues here, the meaning of coherence and the science of the signs.

My use of the phrase “a coherent scientific framework” contains the assumption that a grounding of scientific cosmology in natural cosmic rhythm will contribute to the coherence of science. This opens problems in epistemology, primarily that conventional epistemology routinely defines truth as a function of coherent description or representation rather than a function of things themselves. Conventionally, scientific knowledge is of concepts, not of reality, hence the Kantian distinction between phenomena as knowable and noumena as unknowable. My view is that this standard distinction results in a confusion between the concept and the reality. In the case here, the measurement of time, the scientific second is a powerful conceptual tool for observing deep order within nature, through an exact common reference. However, the underlying noumenal reality is the effluxion of time, while the concept is the phenomenal unit of measurement. Analytical coherence requires the second as an arbitrary exact unit. This order is primarily theoretical or ideal, rather than being primarily inherent in nature itself. The gain in explanatory consistency and simplicity can be at the expense of power. By contrast, natural rhythms such as the year and day are unquestionably part of nature itself, but their complexity and variance makes them unsuitable as precise scientific measures. My approach is to ask if these natural rhythms actually generate longer and shorter cycles which could be quantified and observed. If so, this is a contribution to coherence. My hypothesis is that the geocentric rhythms I am describing are part of the universe itself and that exploring their complexity can help us to understand the real structure of time. This opens a tension in the meaning of coherent between ‘explaining what is real’ and ‘internally consistent’, ie between ‘coherence with reality’ and ‘coherence with other ideas’. Two examples to illustrate this epistemological problem derive from Einstein’s comment that God does not play dice and from the musical method of equal tuning. I will come back to these later.

Regarding the science of the signs, I now see your point about why my model has problems, in that it generates cusp points which vary from the exact thirty degree points used in conventional tropical cusps. This is germane to the comments in the previous paragraph that exploring rhythmic complexity can help understand temporal structure, and that concept is often taken for reality. My hypothesis is that the four turning points of the year establish a basic harmonic temporal rhythm for the earth, and that more complex rhythms are like overtones. The exact 30° convention is conceptually simple, but if its physical basis is in the four turning points, then it is not exact. As you point out, by taking the starting point at the equinox, the 90° point will not exactly match the solstice. My view is that the solstices should in fact be physical sign cusps, and furthermore, that the solstices and equinoxes should generate the cusps at 120° from each of the four turning points to generate the twelve signs. By this method, the six fire and air cusps will be the same as convention because they are harmonics of the equinoxes, but the six water and earth cusps will move slightly to align with the solstices. Hence the sine waves discussed in my next post, generated by equal 30° division, may be inexact.