Quote:
Originally Posted by Maksutov
You've got twelve starting data points and somehow you've managed to transform those into a number that goes to 6 significant figures with an 0.001 % error factor (based on a 99/99 confidence interval I take it)? See me after class, please.  |
You misunderstand. I am using 72 starting data points. These show that the SSB cycle lengthened between 1590 and 2010 by 0.1 years from 178.83 years to 178.9256 years on a moving average basis.
The additional decimal points in the number 178.867624 are simply a long term average for the SSB cycle since 1500. Sorry for not having my presentation fully worked out in advance here, but this number has been superseded by my observation that this data shows a clear trend, as per my latest graph, massively improving the harmonic correlation to the precession. Using the revised 2010 number of 178.9256, including numbers to four decimal points improves the accuracy of the correlation.
The 0.001% error factor is derived as follows.
- SSB cycle moving average in 2010 = 178.9256 years
- Precessional cycle = 25765 years (= 179.9236 x 144)
- (2010 SSB cycle) 178.9256 x 144 = 25765.288 years
- Difference between these two figures = 0.001% suggesting direct harmonic correlation between SSB cycle and precession
PS – was it the attachment format or content that was a problem? It was only 12kb so should not be a download problem for people. I have to learn how to format attachments better. This one is 100% pure empirical.