I welcome these questions and comments, but with respect I really don’t think they amount to much, as they focus on peripheral distractions and neglect the main point. Examples are just illustrations, but the thesis is a matter of logic and mathematical cosmology. The proof is deductive not inductive. The simple logical reason why these cycles should fit human behaviour is that precession is a real encompassing framework for everything that has ever happened on earth. That is just a fact. The purpose of the illustrations is to support this cosmological argument, so the ‘astronomical stuff’ which you suggest I leave out is the core of the argument. Proceeding from the observation that cycles are real to the prediction that events should conform to them is no more a logical fallacy than Einstein’s prediction of the precession of the perihelion of Mercury – where he proceeded from the observation that relativity is real to the assumption the data will fit it. I concede the strength of a precessional cycle can be disputed, but not its existence. Indeed, the fallacy is on your part, the fallacy of inductive reasoning, in suggesting that further inductive examples would be a key to improving the argument, whereas the logically valid approach is deductive – providing a mathematical framework within which such correlations should be expected. Precession encompasses history, albeit weakly, just as tides are an encompassing framework for everything in an ocean rock pool. Of course tides are not the sole determinant for a rock pool, but they are a big one, and like precession they are consistent and reliably predictable. It is like night follows day, but then maybe that is also too complicated (or too simple?) as a basis for some to explain the nature of time. My problem here is that I am trying to articulate a transformative vision with deep and wide cultural ramifications. I think it makes fairly simple sense to see precession as a possible framework for history, and can only infer that the reasons people are not interested are more cultural than logical, as these arguments are entirely new.

The events on earth for which data is most comprehensive are those which provide the best material to illustrate how the precessional cycle can be seen in history. My issue with the Olmec, with no disrespect, was that the quantity of data about them and their place in history are so comparatively minor that they cannot be used as an example on the world scale I am suggesting. We have neither the adequate records of dated events nor a subsequent world civilisation which is widely seen as its successor. These are available abundantly for Rome and the USA. I thought that was obvious but apparently not to some. As well, arguably but more contentiously, there is a critical path of the dominant powers of the world. Even if Ancient China was bigger, Ancient Rome is the antecedent of the USA, the current dominant power and so is arguably at the cutting edge of human activity.

Your comments demonstrate that you are too fixed in your views to see that the comparisons between Zama and Normandy/ Hiroshima, between the expulsions of the kings in Rome and England, and between the imperial expansion of Rome and the USA have strong parallels separated by exactly one cosmic age. To me these examples are interesting evidence, but I can see that it challenges some emotional assumptions of modern astronomy so I understand why stubborn rejection is so attractive. I am illustrating a deductive thesis of cosmology by events that are well known. It makes little sense to ask to illustrate it from things that are not well known, whether by me or by others.

In discussing with a friend, I realised that the issue of astrology is more of a sticking point here than I have suggested so far. I have been reluctant to discuss astrology here because it elicits such hysterical emotion among scientists, partly I admit with good reason given the anti-scientific nature of much astrology. However, astrology is necessary as a logical framework for these ideas, explaining both their rationale and their rejection. The underlying logic of this thesis is a harmonic structure of time. Dane Rudhyar argues in his book Astrological Timing that the cosmic ages are a natural harmonic division of the great year, and that if this natural harmonic twelve-fold division is considered as a physical reality, then it makes sense to explore the historical evidence for a further twelve-fold division of these periods. I have previously discussed the harmonic significance of the number twelve as a divisor of terrestrial cycles. When the hypothetical step is taken to divide the age into twelve sub-ages or houses, we find that these periods are exactly – exactly - the same length as a basic rhythm of the solar system, the 178.9 year solar system barycentric cycle. This is physics, not mysticism. Rudhyar uses this period, which he took as the rough approximation of 180 years, as a definition of the twelve ‘houses’ of the age. Now, the point is, if for convenience of reference we say that the Age of Pisces began at the moment 0 (ie between 1BC and 1AD), and the Age is rounded here to 2148 years, then we can define and illustrate the twelve houses of the age by the following cube diagram with two vertices per house.


My thesis is grounded in the empirical observation that this cube is a representation of the age, so repeats twelve times each great year, about two million times since life began. It suggests a long term cyclic pulsing of terrestrial time, so that each time the earth gets to the same point in the wave pulse, every 2147-8 years, similar things happen – there is a deep long term underlying causality in which events have causes and effects that are not immediate but are separated by an age. It is rather like the way creatures of habit do the same thing at the same time each day, like baboons warming their hands to the sun or people having a siesta, but this is a bigger and deeper causal framework.

I have assumed in this thread that precession has a constant rate, so that the current arc second rate of precession maps equally onto all terrestrial time to produce the age period of 2147 years. It may well be that precession is changing its speed, but I have not seen strong argument for a rate of change. I consider it unlikely that such a rate of change would produce much material difference, but am willing to be convinced otherwise.

A further key argument arising from this model of time is its implications for Christian eschatology. Again, this is a theme I have hesitated to discuss here in view of Baut’s rules on religion, but this is an evidence-based physical argument from astronomy, suggesting a 2147 year gap between the life of Christ and the reign of God. My claim is that key major New Testament texts are strongly explained by a precessional framework. Jesus Christ as Alpha and Omega equates to his temporal position not only at the beginning of the Age of Pisces and end of the Age of Aries but at the beginning and end of the 25765 year cycle of the Great Year. The parable of the loaves and fishes equates to the then beginning Pisces-Virgo equinoctial framework as the source of abundant creativity. The Olivet Discourse of Matthew 24 introduces the concept of the age as the key temporal structure in a way that corresponds precisely to the precessional age. The three wise men are a direct mythic link to astrology. An elegant physical representation of the Trinity can be presented in natural terms in our corner of the universe as God the Father = the constellations of the zodiac, God the Son = the precessional cycle of earth incarnated at the turning point of the Great Year; and God the Holy Spirit = the reverberation of Father and Son through planetary history. Most tellingly, the vision of New Jerusalem as a large cube with twelve foundation stones in order of the zodiac signs in reverse presents a direct coded reference to precessional cosmology.

I am now reading an interesting book, The Great Year, Astrology, Millenarianism and History by Nicholas Campion. He does not take up these neo-Christian ideas, but he does point out that the Old Testament hostility to astrology is at the root of a deeply felt western cultural aversion to systematic efforts to understand history as revealed in parallel to cosmic signs. My view is that Jesus Christ saw his own vision as requiring such an astrological cosmology, and as reconciling such a cosmology with monotheism. The startling inference is that Jesus deliberately presented these astrological ideas in a coded way, expecting they would not be understood for a very long time, but with confidence that they would eventually become the basis to reconcile and integrate religion and science.