Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Tulip
[edit]Hence over the next twelve thousand years we will go through six ages which respectively will be characterised by the principles of knowledge, use, vision, desire, balance and analysis.
|
Why not analysis, balance, desire, vision, use, and knowledge? Where is the evidence that supports your choice and sequence of these words? I say the periods will be characterized by the principles of intuition, form, need, touch, skew, and perception. Prove me wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Tulip
I argue the possible effect of this long term pattern can be understood by direct analogy with musical harmony. Considering precession as the cosmic context of evolution as depicted, our DNA has evolved within this stable resonant space-time framework. I have previously explained why a twelve-fold division of this cycle emerges as a primary harmonic structure. Our participation in this temporal resonance is a deep and weak feature of our environment. Just as people in a cathedral resonate to the organ sound, and organisms in an ocean rock pool exhibit the same cyclic features as the tide, our DNA exhibits the same cyclic patterns as the larger cosmic environment.
|
People resonating to organ sounds has nothing to do with musical harmony. It has to do with body mass, free-air resonance frequencies, and other acoustic properties of matter. Nor have you demonstrated it has any relationship to DNA or tidal/orbital cycles. All you've provided is a lot of words that appear to be recooked variations of Pythagorean numerology. You've made this claim about musical harmony a number of times now, but have provided no substantiating evidence that connects it to your other claims.
In general, you need to use the following format: "This [fill in with particular claim] has been verified because [fill in experimental results in discrete quantities] has shown it to be an accurate model."
Robert, it's obvious what you're doing is casting yet another horoscope, this time one that supposedly applies to a 26,000 (or was it 12,000?) year period. The predictions you're making are as ill-defined and generalized as any other horoscope, such that they can be applied to just about anything, anybody, and any event.
But nothing you've presented is even close to a scientific hypothesis, since there's no objective, independently verifiable evidence that has been provided, especially quantitative data that support your claims. Meaningless numbers having to do with numerological relationships between dates and orbital periods don't count.
Kindly use your hypothesis to make some discrete, precisely-defined predictions, evaluate their accuracy, and then get back to us with the results expressed in quantities, not word salad.